I wasn't going to post here anymore, but I like to tie up loose ends, so here we go again.
In reply to origin, re: your #65 reply.
Where there is no matter or mass there cannot exist a state of momentum, as there is nothing for gravity to act upon. Energy of itself as a "primal force" has no matter.
......
IF gravity were able to exert it's actions upon a "state of energy", it would inherently imply that the "state of energy" (light) has a gravimetric component of itself!
.....
Gravity cannot act upon itself, nor can it "influence" a non-matter entity...there is nothing to exert effect upon.
......
A couple of points. Light/photons follow geodesic paths in space/time, and due to the momentum energy does create it's own albeit tiny space/time warpage and consequently gravity.
Gravity itself is non linear and it has been shown that gravity makes gravity....
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
see....
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity
General relativity: a theory with non-linear laws
Let us approach general relativity step by step, starting with situations in which gravity is comparatively weak. In such situations, the predictions of general relativity differ only by very little from those of Newtonian gravity. Physicists describe such situations using what are called post-Newtonian approximations, which systematically add general relativistic effects to a scenario initially described with the help of Newton's theory. In such descriptions, one of the things to notice is that, binding energy indeed serves as a source of gravity - an example for the "gravity of gravity", since in the last analysis, gravity itself is responsible for this particular source of further gravity.
Next, we can take a look at situations which have no counterpart in Newtonian physics. A prime example are gravitational waves, and these are also an example for the gravity of gravity: As such waves propagate, energy is transported through space. But energy is a source of gravity, so when two gravitational waves meet, they do not just pass through each other, they interact. If both waves are weak, the interaction will be almost unnoticeable, but for stronger waves, the consequences can be quite dramatic - in some cases, the collision of two gravitational waves could lead to the formation of a black hole!
Speaking of black holes, the collapse of a star to form such an object is another example where the gravity of gravity becomes important. You might think that during such a collapse, as matter becomes compressed further and further, its contribution to local gravity would become more and more important. But in fact, that is not the case - on the contrary, in the innermost regions of the collapse, close to the black hole's singularity, the gravity of gravity itself is mostly responsible for the structure of space and time (more about this can be found in the spotlight text Of singularities and breadmaking.
That gravitational sources do not simply add up - that there is such a thing as the gravity of gravity - can also be seen directly in Einstein's equations, Einstein's recipe for how matter and other sources of gravity interact with the geometry of spacetime. These equations are non-linear in the same sense that the equation x²=4 is nonlinear. If you add two values for x which satisfy the equation, say x=-2 and x=2, then the result x=0 will not satisfy the equation as well. In the case of Einstein's equations, this corresponds to a statement somewhat like the following: If you add up two gravitational fields, including their sources, where each field-source-combination obeys Einstein's equations, then the sum will not be another combination of fields and sources compatible with Einstein's laws of gravity.
In fact (and this is the reason for the cautious "somewhat" in the previous sentence), in general relativity, there are even more fundamental problems when it comes to adding up sources. In many situations, using the concepts of general relativity, you cannot even state what it means to add up "fields including their sources". All the simple examples above presuppose a background structure of space and time. We talked about two spherical masses and stated that, at a given moment in time, the total force is the sum of the force when only one of the spheres is present at its given location in space plus the corresponding force for the other sphere. This only makes sense if it is possible to specify what the "given location" is, and what the "given moment in time". But in general relativity, the geometry of space and time is influenced by sources of gravity. Imagine some configuration of masses. If I remove one of them, then the distances of the others to some specific test particle will automatically change. Could I simply move the test particle around, restoring its original distances to the remaining masses? In general, not even that will be possible - restoring some of the distances to their original values will necessarily cause the distances to some of the other masses be different. Under these circumstances, there is not even a sensible definition of what it means to remove one of the spheres and examine how that removal affects the gravitational attraction acting on a test particle in one and the same location.
There is another way of putting this. In Einstein's theory, you're always dealing with complete universes. Even if you use the theory to describe a single black hole, then strictly speaking what you are describing is a very simple, but nonetheless complete model universe - a universe containing a black hole and nothing else. Throughout that universe, the geometry of space and time is influenced by the black hole. Not only is there no uniquely defined way to add two universes - how will you decide which location in one of the universes is "the same" as a given location in the other universe? In many examples, such an addition seems completely impossible - for instance, how could you possibly add a big bang universe for which the volume of space is finite, and an infinitely extended model universe containing a single black hole?
Vice versa, even within a single universe there is no general procedure for identifying the extent to which one of many bodies contained in that universe contributes to gravity. The gravitational field can only be described as a whole. It cannot be constructed from more elementary building blocks.
Non-linearity makes relativistic physics more difficult than Newtonian gravity or electrodynamics. There is no general way of building up more complex situations from elementary building blocks. For each complex situation, the calculations must start anew. If you know how a test particle would move in the vicinity of two different single black holes, that does not tell you what gravity the particle would feel if both black holes were present.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
So, how is this proof of anything? Simple...it proves that "long established theories that are accepted" are subject to CHANGE! "
Quite possibly true, but that change if it occurs, will in all likelyhood be from the established mainstream science.
Plus some theories such as the BB, SR/GR and Evolution are really so obviously near factual, and so well supported by the continuing mountains of evidence, that any new theory, [eg: a QGT] will almost certainly encompass them and extend their zones of applicability, rather then invalidate them.
(Thanks for reading!)[/QUOTE]
