https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread ... space-time
IMO the best question and answer post between profloater and pogono can be found here:
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread ... ost2439460
Before you put much stock in anything that Reality Check has to say in that thread, keep in mind that RC is the same clueless individual that falsely claimed at JREF/CF that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma and then he tried to claim that the term "actual" had any "actual" scientific meaning in science. He blatantly and irrationally tried to change the meaning of Dungey's *published* statements to the contrary as well as Peratt's claims to the contrary from his book. When repeatedly pressed to come up with anything published to support his outrageously false claim, he ran.Pogono:Originally Posted by profloater:
I am crazy enough to jump where angels feart tread. The maths is too much for me so I ask for an explanation along these lines.
If a particle could hypothetically come to existence its field would expand spherically at c. This introduces a time element into a particle expansion that a distant observer would see not as an inverse square static Gaussian field but a growing field or gravity wave. This under pins general relativity with velocity taking the place of hypothetical coming into existence. is such a time changing field what you are getting at as a new explanation? It seems to be a complicate d way of expressing space time. I guess I missed the pont but. Hope you don't mind me asking.?
Physical interpretation of "time dilation field" seems to be as follows.
If electric field is indeed related to time dilation factor (as I show in the article), thus light wave would be just disturbance in the space-time structure propagating in the space-time. So, space-time acts as mythical "ether" - the medium for light wave.
So, local increase of time dilation factor must change the path and velocity of the light (time dilation factor acts as refraction index in the lenses).
But local increase of time dilation factor is just local increase of the energy, and changing light velocity and path is a try to "accelerate the light".
So local increase of energy would just make space-time curved (where in such curved space-time light locally has still the velocity of light) - what indeed agrees with General Relativity Theory.
To summarize the picture coming from my work:
Electromagnetism it is not some field in space-time. Space-time it is electromagnetism and gravity is the effect of unevenly distributed electromagnetic field.
Reality Check is also the same clueless individual that irrationally claimed that the process known as "magnetic reconnection" takes place in a vacuum in the total absence of charged particles or charged particle acceleration. I'm still waiting for RC and clueless Clinger to produce their mathematical proof that they promised me and their formula to show a non-zero rate of "reconnection" in a vacuum 8 years later.
Reality Check also tried to falsely claim that EU/PC solar models predict that the sun emits "no neutrinos" over at CF while quoting a passage from Findlay's PDF that was describing *mainstream* models of brown dwarfs, not EU/PC models of ordinary suns like our sun. RC just makes stuff up as he goes and he's totally sleazy to boot:
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=16775
In spite of the absurd nature of most of Reality Check's posts, he does actually pose two relevant questions that warrant a response by pogono IMO.
Those two specific questions are the only useful things that RC has posted to that thread so far IMO. I'll be curious to see how/if pogono responds to them.IF01: Show that equation 38 is the same as the covariant form of the Lorentz force.
IF02: Apply equation 38 to a single particle with a given charge of 3.142 e and show that matches the classical Lorentz force result.