Between work, trying to finish my AppEngine book, and doing all of the technical work getting Scientopia running smoothly on the new hosting service, I haven’t had a lot of time for writing new blog posts. So, once again, I'm recycling some old stuff.

It's that time again - yes, we have *yet another* wacko reinvention of physics that pretends to have math on its side. This time, it's "The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Pressure Gravity Theory", by "Engineer Xavier Borg". (Yes, he signs all of his papers that way - it's always with the title "Engineer".) This one is as wacky as Neal Adams and his PMPs, except that the author seems to be less clueless.

At first I wondered if this were a hoax - I mean, "Engineer Borg"? It seems like a deliberately goofy name for someone with a crackpot theory of physics... But on reading through his web-pages, the quantity and depth of his writing has me leaning towards believing that this stuff is legit. *(And as several commenters pointed out the first time I posted this, in Germany, you need a special license to be an engineer, and as a result, "Engineer" is actually really used as a title. Still seems pompous to me - I mean, technically, I'm entitled to go around calling myself Dr. Mark Chu-Carroll, PhD., but I don't generally do that.)*

It's hard to decide how to take this apart, because there's just *so much* of it, and it's *all* so silly!

What Engineer Borg is on about is a revolution in the basic theories of physics. You see, Engineer Borg has realized that all of the physicists in the world have gotten everything wrong, and Engineer Borg has discovered the Real Legitimate Truth That Is Being Ignored By Everyone.

The central idea of his theory is that relativity is wrong - sort of. That is, on the one hand, he frequently cites relativistic effects as being valid and correct; but on the other hand, the fundamental idea of his theory is that all motion in the universe consists of orbits within orbits within orbits, all eventually centered on a *fixed, unmoving* body at the *exact center* of the universe.

This is, of course, gibberish... One of the fundamental concepts of relativity is that nature exhibits a particular kind of mathematical symmetry. (Remember than in math, symmetry means immunity to transformation: that is, a system is symmetric with respect to a particular transformation if you can't tell the difference between the system before and after the transformation. Imagine a square. Rotate it 90 degrees. The result is a square which is indistinguishable from the original - even though you did something to it. The square has a *rotational symmetry*.) The basic symmetry of relativity is one of immunity to shifts in frame of reference. Given any non-accelerated frame of reference, every possible observation works perfectly if you assume that that frame of reference is stationary. Imagine you've got two spaceships, A and B, in space, and the distance between them is increasing by 10 miles per second. There's one frame of reference where A is stationary, and B is moving at 10 miles per second. There's one frame of reference where B is stationary, and A is moving at 10 miles per second. There's one frame of reference where both A and B are each moving at 5 miles per second. There's one frame of reference where A is moving at 7 miles per second, and B is moving at 3 miles per second. Which frame is correct? Which spaceship is *really* moving, and which one is stationary? According to relativity, neither *and* both. It's all a question of which way you look at it: all of those ways are equally correct. There is no single *correct* frame of reference. Nature is symmetric.

So, relativity is based, mathematically, on a particular kind of symmetry - and what that symmetry means is there is no preferred frame of reference. Take that away, and relativity falls apart. There is no relativity without that fundamental symmetry. But Engineer Borg doesn't let that concern him. After all, he's got a whole new version of physics, and so he probably has his own version of relativity too.

And why not? After all, he's reinvented just about everything else. He rejects the idea of particles of matter - the particle/wave duality is, to Engineer Borg, utter nonsense. Everything is electromagnetic waves. What we see as "particles" are really just electromagnetic "standing waves". According to Engineer Borg, particles don't really exist. They're just a coincidence - a wave pattern that happens to be persistent because of resonance, or interference - or, well, anything that produces a standing wave. Or hell, why worry about what produces it? It's just there, damnit! It's obvious, don't waste brilliant Engineer Borg's time with these stupid questions!

Nothing can actually *move*; what appear to be particles are just waves, and if the "standing wave" pattern is slightly unstable, you'll get a moving wave - aka a moving particle. So a particle is actually an *almost stable* standing wave. Which just happens to be able to be pushed by other standing waves, even though waves don't actually behave that way. But wait - I'm doing that questioning thing again, and Engineer Borg is far too brilliant to waste time on my foolish questions.

Does this make sense? No... The kinds of wave interference that he's talking about just don't work. He's trying to create a basic source of all of these waves, and then claiming that they form *perfectly stable* interference and resonance patterns, even as things move around and interact. According to Engineer Borg, every possible interaction between these wonderful wave things always remains stable. After all, they *have to*, because otherwise, the theory wouldn't work. Is there any math to support it? No. He waves lots of equations around at pointless times, but can't be bothered to show how the math works for the actual *hard* stuff. (This is very typical of many crackpots. They really want to look credible. They really believe their crazy theories. So they do some math to show that it works. Only it *doesn't* work. But since they're so sure it works, they don't worry about the details: there are *some* parts where the math can be made to work - and so, they assume, that's the foundation. So they've got some math - which means they're doing real science! And they've got lots of handwaving, which they claim follows from their math. But they never, ever show *how*.)

So, what creates gravity? After all, that's the part of his theory that we started out with, right? Well, he's actually got two different explanations of that. We shouldn't let that worry us; consistency is a just a crutch for small minds!

Let's look at Engineer Borg's theory of gravity. First, his introduction:

This paper aims at providing a satisfying theory for the yet unkown mechanism for gravity. High frequency electromagnetic waves sourced by the fixed energetic core of the universe, referred to as Kolob, sometimes also referred to as zero point energy, is predicted from a steady state universe in oscillatory motion and pervades all space. Radiation pressure (Poynting vector) imbalance of such highly penetrating extragalactic incoming radiation, acting through all matter is held responsible for pushing matter together.

It comes back to his "universal" frame of reference gibberish. He believes that there's a fixed point which is the exact center of the universe, and that there's this *thing* called Kolob at that point, which is radiating waves that create everything.

One of his gravity theories is similar to Einsteinean gravity, but rewritten to be a part of his standing wave nonsense:

To visualise the effect of non-linear electromagnetic element volume (space-time) at a centre of gravity, imagine the surface of a rubber sheet with a uniform grid drawn on it, and visualise the grid when the rubber is pulled down at a point below its surface. Such bending of space-time is a result of this non-linearity of the parameters present in the dielectric volume. One method of generating a non-linear dielectric volume is to expose the whole dielectric volume under concern to a non -linear electric field, with the 'centre of gravity' being the centre of highest electric field flux density.

An example of this is our planet, which has a non-linear electric field gradient with its highest gradient near the surface. Linear gravity does not exist, gravitational force is always non-linear (an-isotropic) pointing towards its centre. That is earth's g=9.8 at ground level, but decreases at higher altitudes. Linear gravity results in a linear space-time and is the same as zero gravity. Similarly, an electromagnetic element exposed to a linear force field will reconstruct the objects in it at zero energy transfer. However, when exposed to a non-linear force field, an object moving within it will experience a force imbalance in the direction of the highest force flux density. So the attraction of matter to centres of gravity is not a result of matter itself, but of the spacetime 'stretching' and 'compression' infront and behind the moving object. A massless dielectric, that is space itself, would still be 'accelerated' towards the point of easier reconstruction. The mass movement is just an indication of movement of its electromagnetic constituents.

You see, the particles don't really exist, because they're just waves. But still, the non-existent particles continue to warp spacetime - just like relativity says they do - because of a "non-linear electric field gradient". And that's gravity!

Does it work? Not really. This explanation of gravity would create a field that varies dramatically over time. Gravitational waves, which some theories of physics predict should exist, have never been observed. But if this theory were true, then gravitational waves and general gravitational variations would be common everyday occurences. That's not what we observe at all. But if you ignore the non-variability of gravity - if you claim that gravity actually isn't a fixed force, but varies, and ignore the stability of things like orbits, then you can wave your hands, throw around a lot of jargon, and pretend that it works. But it doesn't: there's absolutely no math that can make this explain the actual gravitational behavior of something like the solar system.

And next, there's his *other* theory of gravity - this is ignores that whole dielectric field thing, and turns it into a direct pushing force from those waves radiated by Kolob:

This paper aims at providing a satisfying theory for the yet unkown mechanism for gravity. High frequency electromagnetic waves sourced by the fixed energetic core of the universe, referred to as Kolob, sometimes also referred to as zero point energy, is predicted from a steady state universe in oscillatory motion and pervades all space. Radiation pressure (Poynting vector) imbalance of such highly penetrating extragalactic incoming radiation, acting through all matter is held responsible for pushing matter together.

So, the "zero point energy", which he elsewhere says is the same thing as the cosmological constant - the force that is causing the universe to expand - is really creating a kind of pressure, which *pushes* matter together.

Does he have any math for how this works? Well, sort of. It's actually really funny math. You see, the main reason that we know that electromagnetic waves must be the *actual* force behind gravity is... They both follow inverse-square relationships:

Despite the precise predictions of the equations of gravity when compared to experimental measurements, no one yet understands its connections with any other of the known forces. We also know that the equations for gravitational forces between two masses are VERY similar to those for electrical forces between charges, but we wonder why.

The equations governing the three different force fields are:

- Electrostatic Force
- Gravitational Force , ..., = gravitational constant, = mass, = distance
- Magnetic Force , ...., , = magnetic monopoles strength, = distance
We learn that electrostatic forces are generated by charges, gravitational forces are generated by masses, and magnetic fields are generated by magnetic poles. But can this be really true? How could three mechanisms be so similar yet so different.

Yeah... That's pretty much it. They're all basic inverse square relationships, therefore they *must* ultimately be the same thing. It all makes sense because he's *also* reinvented the entire system of units - replacing SI with his own system called *ST*, which has only two units, (space/distance) and (time). All energy has unit ; all forces are in units (). The three equations end up being *exactly* the same in Borg's system, because he's *redefined* the units so that charge, magnetic field, and mass are all the same - so the only difference between the equations are the constants G, U, and K.

Why does that make sense? Well, because according to Engineer Borg, units analysis is fundamental to figuring out how things work. Any two things with the same unit are the same thing. So, since in Borg physics, all forces are , that means that all forces are the same thing:

Analysing the three force field equations, one immediately observes that each one has got its own constant of proportionality, but otherwise, seem to be analogous to one another. Looking at the SI units of force that is kg*m/s2 doesn't help much, but here is where the new ST system of units comes to rescue. The similarity between them can be best explained by analyzing the space time dimensions of force itself. The dimensions of ANY force field in ST units are .... T=time, S=distance. So, we see that the inverse square law () is not something directly related to magnetism, electric fields or gravity, but is contained in the definition of force itself. The spacetime diagram shows how one can 'pinch' space in the time direction in the presence of a force field. The geometric relation between space and time, or the relation between time and disk surface area is the same relation between energy () and distance (). This is also confirmed by the mechanical law Force = Energy/ distance. This means that all forces can be accounted for by electromagnetic energy, in other words

the effect of ANY force field must be electromagnetic in nature. It is therefore logically evident that the gravitation mechanism is also electromagnetic as for all other forces.

Yup, that's it, it must be electromagnetic, because everything is electromagnetic, because the units match. And since it's electromagnetic, and everything electromagnetic is ultimately created by "zero point energy" radiated by Kolob, that means that it's all part of the grand revolving universe centered around Kolob. And don't forget, because Engineer Borg can't stress this enough: the math all works, because *the units match*.

In case anyone was wondering, according to the Mormons, Kolob is the star closest to where God lives. It's also the inspiration for Battlestar Galactica's Kobol, so make of that what you will.

History, archaeology, physics, everything's better with random mormon revisionists.

"Imagine you’ve got two spaceships, A and B, in space, and the distance between them is increasing by 10 miles per second. There’s one frame of reference where A is stationary, and B is moving at 10 miles per second. There’s one frame of reference where B is stationary, and A is moving at 10 miles per second. There’s one frame of reference where both A and B are each moving at 5 miles per second. There’s one frame of reference where A is moving at 7 miles per second, and B is moving at 3 miles per second."

Actually, that's not quite right. This would be correct according to Galilean relativity, but in special relativity the velocity addition law is more complicated.

For instance, imagine one bullet shooting to your left at 3/4c and one to your right at 3/4 c. The distance between them is increasing at 1.5c in your reference frame. In the reference frame of one of the bullets, though, the distance between them is only increasing at 24/25c.

If the relative velocity of the two ships is 'v', and then you boost to a reference frame where A is moving at velocity 'a', the velocity of B (call it 'b') is

b = (v - a)/(1 + a*v/c^2).

A few miles per second is not near the speed of light though (which is about 150,000 miles per second) so the corrections are small. For example, if A is moving 7 miles per second, then B will move 2.99999999 miles per second.

You know, one thing about writing a blog like this that drives me absolutely batty is that people have a compulsive need to nitpick. Yes, I said that if A is moving at 7 mps, then B would be moving at 3 mps. I was off by 0.00000001 miles per second. In other words, I was off by about 1/1500th of an inch per second. Or put another way, I made an error of

percent.Yes, that's

definitelyreally important. I really should have introduced a whole explanation of relativistic effects on time and relative speed into my explanation of symmetry, in order to not make that 1/1500th of an inch per second error. It's a terrible mistake, I'm thoroughly ashamed of myself.My comment wasn't intended to be nitpicky. I thought I was making an important conceptual point about relativity.

In the original passage, the "7 miles per second" and "3 miles per second" were arbitrary numbers cited for convenience. The goal was to illustrate a general idea - that the speeds of the spaceships would add up to the same number in any inertial frame. It's that concept that I was replying to, not the details of the numbers.

Especially considering that your essay replied to someone else's incorrect understanding of relativity, I thought it was important to be conceptually accurate about special relativity.

For example, one could extrapolate from the passage that the speed of the ships could just as well have been .01 miles per second or 100,000 miles per second. You could even consider the situation where one of the "ships" is actually a light beam, and find the speed of light changing in different reference frames. Then you would run into meaningful mistakes.

If this distinction is nitpicky, or it's unimportant to the thrust of the argument, then I suppose you're right and I was being a pain. I think it's an important point, but we can have different opinions without being dismissive and sarcastic.

I think I am speaking for most people who read your comment above when I say that I am not likely to comment on your blog again after reading it. I had enough of being bullied by high-school bullies when I was in high school.

TL:DR; Author who nitpicks another man's work is intolerant of those who nitpick his. Pot. Kettle. Black. Also see: Ironic

in Germany, you need a special license to be an engineer, and as a result, “Engineer” is actually really used as a title.No, that's not true. What's true is that the title of the degree typically is more informative in Germany than in the US or Britain, where all (non-medical) doctorates are, somewhat misleadingly, called "PhD" (obviously, originally related to philosophy). So if you have an engineering degree, you can write "Dr.-Ing", or, with a diploma, "Dipl-Ing". "Engineer" on its own is not a meaningful title.

as much as crackpottery should be debunked, there are a couple of things that seem quite unspecific and leave me confused...

"Well, he’s actually got two different explanations of that. We shouldn’t let that worry us"

It shouldn't, or should it? I think string theory and quantum loop gravity are after the same things - and are quite different approaches. In modeling I'd have thought that you can end up with different models that may target the same area of studies.

On that electromagnetic standing wave: "Or hell, why worry about what produces it? It’s just there, damnit!"

Sensible or not, at least he's trying Does physics have any attempt at explaining what an electron actually is? Or is it just there (damnit!)? Or is it the point that physics should only be concerned with the phenomenology? I would be saddened to hear that.

In real science, we frequently have multiple theories competing as explanations for the same thing. But in general, it's a question of either/or: some people think one is right; some people think the other is right. But they're mutually exclusive explanations of why/how things work. We have multiple theories because we simply don't know which one is actually right.

In the case of Engineer Borg, he's proposing two mutually exclusive theories, while claiming that they are, in fact, one consistent theory. He's claiming that he's got

onetheory of gravity - but he describes it using two different mechanisms, which arenotcompatible with one another.I also noted that Mark's criticism of Borg having two explanations was maybe a little unfair... but meh, who cares, Borg's clearly off his rocker, so there is no defending him.

Regarding the "explaining what an electron actually is", I have two things to point out. First of all, even if one were able to explain particles as standing waves, you'd still be vulnerable to the "only concerned with phenomenology" critique... it is no more existentially satisfying to posit the existence of interfering wave patterns without explanation than to posit the existence of a particle without explanation.

Second, physics is "working on that", so to speak. As we peel back the onion, the hope is that we get to an ultimate explanation that it is fairly easy to accept as being able to just fundamentally spring into existence from nothingness. ("Nothing is unstable", as they say)

In any case, in order to properly frame the question, "Why is there's something rather than nothing?", we must remember that, in all likelihood, there are non-existent philosophers in a non-existent universe asking themselves, "Why is there nothing rather than something?"

Maybe Engineer is actually his name, not a title.

I am currently taking a philosophy of science course, and I understand now why cranks like this are so obsessed with the same theories (it's always relativity).

The first reason is that relativity is non-intuitive and flies in the face of common sense. Although special relativity can be done using high-school level math, the equations used were derived using math that probably would go over the head of most of these geniuses. If they can't understand the math, they are unable to understand the results. Therefore, "relativity is wrong and I'm right because my theory makes more sense."

The second reason is that relativity finally rids physics of the absolutely fixed reference frame that Newton loved so much. This seems to unnerve a lot of people; either they want to fell like they are at the center of the universe or near it, or they just can't comprehend the idea that a frame of reference in motion with a constant velocity can not be distinguished from one with zero velocity.

The final reason, and what I feel is the most important, is that they don't like leaving things explained. This is a manifestation of scientific realism, the belief that behind every law or observed regularity there is a mechanism, that explains why it is so. This stands in stark contrast to positivism, in which a theory consists of a list of postulates which are often abstract, and behind which there may be no mechanism. The idea that there may be no reason why certain things happen makes a lot of people uneasy, and so they seek an explanation.

And relativity, as I see it, is a positivistic theory. There are a couple of postulates in special relativity, from which many predictions can be derived. However, no mechanism for these postulates is provided. And general relativity at first appears to provide a mechanism for gravity, but on closer look, only seems to sweep the problem under the rug. This drives people such as Engineer Borg to come up with *anything* to explain it.

I keep reading that as "kabob", so now I think gravity is caused by a giant stationary hunk of lamb.

As Cole pointed out, there may be a theological component to his ramblings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob

Actually, I'm growing increasingly certain of it. Check out this from the Wikipedia article on Kolob:

Sounds a hell of a lot like Borg's orbits-within-orbits-within-orbits, eh?

You see, the main reason that we know that electromagnetic waves must be the actual force behind gravity is… They both follow inverse-square relationships...As crack-potted as this is, it relates to your earlier comment about "Gravitational waves, which some theories of physics predict should exist..."

We would expect any force carried by discrete particles or waves with no directional preference to fall off in strength according to the inverse square law, because the surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2 (key on the r^2 part). Take any emitter, draw a sphere around it, and the number of waves (or particles) passing through any given square meter of your sphere will be inversely proportional to the square of the radius of that sphere (or more simply: a bigger sphere means less particles going through a window of the same size, because as the sphere gets bigger that window is a smaller fraction of the area)

So while its crackpottery to think that the two forces are the same thing, it is not really very much of a stretch to think gravity is carried by discrete particles or waves. It behaves like we would expect a discrete-particle-carried property to behave.

Doesn't this ignore that the inverse-square law in action has an area component, i.e. object A absorbs an amount of energy from source B that is proportional to the surface area of A that impinges on the beams from B? The intensity per unit area at a given distance changes according to the inverse square, but the total energy depends on the total area.

So, a solar panel gets less energy from the sun if I turn it to 30 degrees from the sun, instead of 90 degrees where it is has the widest area cutting across the beams.

My understanding of gravity (and yours, I imagine) doesn't work this way; I weigh the same amount (and so does my plywood sheet) regardless of my orientation to the Earth. Unless we call mass something like the cognate of area in the equation, but m^2kg, even in Engineer Borg's units I bet.

Not to be confused with this actual Physics/Planetary Science research:

L. Iorio, H.I.M. Lichtenegger, M.L. Ruggiero, C. Corda, "Phenomenology of the Lense-Thirring effect in the Solar System"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.3225

Introduction

The analogy between Newton’s law of gravitation and

Coulomb’s law of electricity has been largely investigated

since the nineteenth century, focusing on the

possibility that the motion of masses could produce

a magnetic-like field of gravitational origin. For instance,

Holzm¨uller (1870) and Tisserand (1872, 1890),

taking into account the modification of the Coulomb

law for the electrical charges by Weber (1846), proposed

to modify Newton’s law in a similar way, introducing

in the radial component of the force law a term

depending on the relative velocity of the two attracting

particles, as described by North (1989) and Whittaker

(1960). Moreover, Heaviside (1894) investigated

the analogy between gravitation and electromagnetism;

in particular, he explained the propagation of energy in

a gravitational field in terms of an electromagnetic-type

Poynting vector.

Actually, today the term “gravitomagnetism” (GM)

(Thorne 1988; Rindler 2001; Mashhoon 2007) commonly

indicates the collection of those gravitational

phenomena regarding orbiting test particles, precessing

gyroscopes, moving clocks and atoms and propagating

electromagnetic waves (Dymnikova 1986; Ruggiero

and Tartaglia 2002; Sch¨afer 2004, 2009) which,

in the framework of the Einstein’s General Theory of

Relativity (GTR), arise from non-static distributions

of matter and energy. In the weak-field and slow

motion approximation, the Einstein field equations of

GTR, which is a highly non-linear Lorentz-covariant

tensor theory of gravitation, get linearized, thus looking

like the Maxwellian equations of electromagntism.

As a consequence, a “gravitomagnetic” field ~B g, induced

by the off-diagonal components g0i, i = 1, 2, 3

of the spacetime metric tensor related to mass-energy

currents, does arise. Indeed, bringing together Newtonian

gravitation and Lorentz invariance in a consistent

field-theoretic framework necessarily requires the introduction

of a “magnetic”-type gravitational field of some

form (Khan and O’Connell 1976; Bedford and Krumm

1985; Kolbenstvedt 1988).

In general, GM is used to deal with aspects of GTR

by means of an electromagnetic analogy. However, it

is important to point out that even though the linearization

of the Einstein’s field equations produces the

Maxwell-like equations (the so called “ linear perturbation

approach” to GM, see e.g. Mashhoon (2007)), often

written in the literature including time dependent

terms, they are, in that case, just formal (i.e., a different

notation to write linearized Einstein equations), as

the 3-vectors ~Eg and ~Bg (the “gravito-electromagnetic

fields”) showing up therein do not have a clear physical

meaning. A consistent physical analogy involving

these objects is restricted to stationary phenomena

only (Clark and Tucker 2000; Costa and Herdeiro

2008, 2010), that is, actually, the case treated here.

One may check, for instance, that from the geodesics

equation the corresponding Lorentz force is recovered –

to first order in v/c – only for stationary fields (Costa

and Herdeiro 2008; Bini et al. 2008). Moreover, the

Maxwell-like equations obtained by linearizing GTR

have limitations1, since they are self-consistent at linear

order only, which is what we are concerned with in

this paper; in fact, inconsistencies arise when this fact

is neglected2.

Far from a localized rotating body with angular momentum

~S

the gravitomagnetic field can be written

as (Thorne et al. 1986; Thorne 1988; Mashhoon et al.

2001a)...

Boulderdash! Everybody knows that at the exact center of the universe lies planet Eternium.

Kolob (Kolobok, a bread ball) actually is the protagonist of a famous Russian fairy tale.

Check out my dad's stuff if you want a good idea of the cause of gravity. "Photonics; The Electromagnetic Theory of Everything" by Vernon Brown. It explains gravity for what it is, a byproduct of electromagnetism. His views on gravity include how matter is made of photons and how those photons interact to create gravitation. It is neither a pull nor push. Gravity is merely a result of the path a photon follows to reach it's maximum energy value, some of which is contributed by EM fields along the way. As the EM fields increase, as in the case of a massive body, the path of the photon is altered proportionaly. Since electrons, protons and neutrons are comprised of photons, "matter" congeals as a result of this interaction. Very interesting reading, not crackpot stuff, oh, and solid math IS included Have fun.

"Consciousness is the universe viewing itself through a microscope"...Robert L Brown

me: Got to this bit then you kind of blew up lol.

you: An example of this is our planet, which has a non-linear electric field gradient with its highest gradient near the surface. Linear gravity does not exist, gravitational force is always non-linear (an-isotropic) pointing towards its centre. That is earth's g=9.8 at ground level, but decreases at higher altitudes. Linear gravity results in a linear space-time and is the same as zero gravity. Similarly, an electromagnetic element exposed to a linear force field will reconstruct the objects in it at zero energy transfer. However, when exposed to a non-linear force field, an object moving within it will experience a force imbalance in the direction of the highest force flux density. So the attraction of matter to centres of gravity is not a result of matter itself, but of the spacetime 'stretching' and 'compression' infront and behind the moving object. A massless dielectric, that is space itself, would still be 'accelerated' towards the point of easier reconstruction. The mass movement is just an indication of movement of its electromagnetic constituents.

You see, the particles don't really exist, because they're just waves. But still, the non-existent particles continue to warp spacetime - just like relativity says they do - because of a "non-linear electric field gradient". And that's gravity!

me: Sooo what your saying is gravity is indeed a field of force and not time space curving, witch is complete twaddle i may add, all im going to say is action and reaction and even in my simple mind its clear einstein does not, i repeat DOES NOT account for reaction in time space calcs! contradicted yourself there didn't you lmao.

oh and p.s. show me physically time space curving and ill show you refraction and prove to you that einsteins nowt but hot air...