# Gravity Works Like This

Clocks lower in a gravity well experience fewer ticks because they experience less time to measure.
There isn't any time flowing in those clocks, Grumpy. If it's a quartz clock it employs a piezoelectric vibrating crystal. If it's a mechanical clock it employs sprogs and cogs. If it's an optical clock it employs light emitted from a hyperfine transition. Whatever it employs, it goes slower when its slower because the thing it employs goes slower. It's that simple.

They still see lightspeed as a constant, from every source in the Universe, light does not slow down only within the confines of clocks, nor does light vary by position in spacetime.
It varies by position in space. That's what Einstein said. He said that's why it curves. See the quotes in the OP here.

Gravity can bend it and can redshift it's frequency, but it does not slow it down.
You've got it back to front. A concentration of energy tied up as the matter of the Earth "conditions" the surrounding space. It alters it, the effect diminishing with distance. So light goes slower when its lower. So light veers like a car veers when it encounters mud at the side of the road. Einstein said a curvature of rays of light can only take place when the speed of light varies with position. See Ned Wright’s Deflection and Delay of Light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light”.

Your feet are younger(in total experienced time)than your head simply because, other than when supine, they spend much more time on the floor. Some physicists even consider gravity to be dilated time, mass dilates time and it becomes infinite at a BH singularity(in theory, anyway), where time stops. While it may forever be impossible for us to know, I think what is beyond that horizon is a wormhole back to the Big Bang...
LOL. Science fiction.

Logically we should get the fastest rate of time's passage...
Whooosh! There it goes! LOL!

the term "empty space" is an oxymoron, space is never empty
Good man. That's what Einstein said:

"This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty."

Grumpy said:
it's a veritable fizz of virtual particles
No it isn't. Virtual particles are field quanta. Like you divide the field up into little chunks and say each one is a virtual particle. They aren't short-lived real particles popping in and out of existence. See Matt Strassler article for more:

http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...ysics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Grumpy said:
So there can be no motionless point in empty space so no absolute time, it's all relative. The reason clocks that use light to measure time have fewer total clicks in a gravity well is that they are measuring less time, not because light is going slower. Lightspeed is a physical property of the Universe, it is intimately tied into time, space and matter. It does not matter how we measure it, our definitions are inventions for our own convenience, they have no effect on the things we are measuring no matter how you manipulate those symbols and ideas. Lightspeed is c, in all frames, from all sources, period. Time varies, space(width, height, depth)varies, gravity(mass)varies, but lightspeed does not vary whatever the metrics used to describe that value. Energy is to mass as the square of c, E=MC^2. It's what makes the stars shine. It requires an absolute value(lightspeed). If your theory requires the variability of the speed of light in a vacuum, it is crap, not science.
It's not my theory, it's Einstein's theory, and it isn't crap.

...Note that Farsight, despite citing this paper and hand-waving at the Ellis paper, makes no attempt to actually show that his VSL theory...
It isn't my theory. It's Einstein's theory, and it was Einstein who said the speed of light varies with position.

RC

All's well when you can get up every morning and your name is not in the Obituaries.

I must insist that the effects I describe are solid science. Lightspeed is constant, length, mass, energy and time's rate all change to the degree and in the direction necessary to insure lightspeed remains constant in all fields. And you singled out the change in the space dimension in the direction of travel. It is a fact that as mass approaches lightspeed it's "appearance" in the direction of travel flattens. At just below lightspeed the entire length of that mass's Universe becomes almost non existent to us. This effect can be seen in the LHC, proton/proton collisions give data on their density/length profiles, you can even tell, by the products and directions, whether the impact was dead center or oblique. The results of a few million such collisions give you their apparent shape(somewhat analogous to how Xray crystallography gave us the shape of the DNA molecule), that shape changes with speed, getting flatter the faster the particle goes relative to the observer. The contraction is not physical to the particle, to it is our length that appears contracted to it(this is all cause by Relative speed), it is a contraction of it's "yardstick" in the direction of travel, that contraction approaches infinity(in our frame)as a particle approaches lightspeed(relative to us). Lorentz was right. You cannot ignore the facts, mate.

Grumpy

It isn't my theory. It's Einstein's theory, and it was Einstein who said the speed of light varies with position.

And yet, as the papers you cited lay out, Einstein's GR works different from VSL theories. So you are supporting your claims based on a detailed mathematical presentation of why your theory is different from Einstein and on all the things that you have to establish in order to support your theory.

And again: It isn't my theory. It's Einstein's theory, and it was Einstein who said the speed of light varies with position.

And again: It isn't my theory. It's Einstein's theory, and it was Einstein who said the speed of light varies with position.
You know that you are referring to one thing Einstein said in one paper written before the advent of GR.

What is your response to the two papers you cited that show all the differences between GR and VSL theories?

Why should we take your claims about GR as anything other than a series of lies?

You know that you are referring to one thing Einstein said in one paper written before the advent of GR.
You know I'm referring to something Einstein said repeatedly during the development of GR:

1911: "If we call the velocity of light at the origin of coordinates c₀, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = c₀(1 + Φ/c²)”.

1912: "On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential".

1913: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis".

1915: "the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned".

1916: “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”.

And as you know, the word "velocity" is the common usage rather than the vector quantity. Think "high velocity bullet”. This is crystal clear because Einstein referred to c which is the speed of light, and to "one of the two fundamental assumptions". That’s the special relativity postulate of the constant speed of light.

PhysBang said:
What is your response to the two papers you cited that show all the differences between GR and VSL theories?
I haven't given one. I've merely pointed out that the constant speed of light is a tautology. I have however said previously that I think Magueijo made a mistake with his VSL cosmology. He said light was fast in the early universe. I think it was slow.

PhysBang said:
Why should we take your claims about GR as anything other than a series of lies?
Because you can do your own research and find that Einstein said what he said. And then you know that I'm telling the truth.

You know I'm referring to something Einstein said repeatedly during the development of GR:
So you should be able to show us where this occurs in GR as published. Unless, of course, you are lying.
I haven't given one. I've merely pointed out that the constant speed of light is a tautology. I have however said previously that I think Magueijo made a mistake with his VSL cosmology. He said light was fast in the early universe. I think it was slow.
So you can give a demonstration of this using the relevant mathematics describing the early universe? Unless, of course, you are lying.
Because you can do your own research and find that Einstein said what he said. And then you know that I'm telling the truth.
Having looked at the published work on GR, it looks like you are lying.

Farsight

You know I'm referring to something Einstein said repeatedly during the development of GR:

So? It didn't make it into the theory, however. The theory is based on a constant speed of light as it's main premise, whatever juicy quote-mined nuggets you come up with. Einstein said a lot of things that can be taken out of context by dishonest critics, kind of reminds me of Trapped's conflation of UFO and alien spacecraft.

I've merely pointed out that the constant speed of light is a tautology. I have however said previously that I think Magueijo made a mistake with his VSL cosmology. He said light was fast in the early universe. I think it was slow.

It was neither, it was exactly lightspeed. Every photon from that era(and all others)and from all sources arrives at Earth at that exact speed. Even galaxies receding from us at significant fractions of lightspeed deliver every photon to us at lightspeed and at no other. These are observed facts, not theories. In fact the very first time a photon is shown to travel at any other speed in a vacuum won't be announced by you on an obscure internet forum, it will be in all the papers and the news shows because such a thing has never been seen. There is no valid evidence of light travelling at any other speed. That's not a tautology, it's a simple fact, whatever metric you invent to describe that value.

Because you can do your own research and find that Einstein said what he said. And then you know that I'm telling the truth.

It may be true that Einstein actually said it(just as it is true that some people actually see UFOs). He often played Devil's Advocate in his argumentation(Darwin did, too. Creationists quote-mine him in exactly the same way you are quote-mining Einstein. With equal validity. And equal understanding). But that is all irrelevant to what Relativity(the final product of all that argumentation)says. Einstein said that "God does not play dice with the Universe." about uncertainty. Einstein didn't believe in a god, first of all. And not only is there dice involved, but they are thrown where no-one can see them...until they do(I think that was Schrodinger's observation). Whatever Einstein said during the development of Relativity is moot, given what he actually said in his completed theory. And the theory is based on a constant speed of light. And while a lot of things Einstein said might be wrong, his theory has stood the test of time, it is the way we see the Universe is, in fact, behaving. And no nugget from some deep vein in that quote-mine is going to change that.

Grumpy

That second part of the question is wrong to ask if you believe in the scientific method?
No. The scientific method describes how to develop a working theory. It doesn't tell scientists how to pic one theory over another. Logically, it should be obvious though: you pick the theory that matches reality better. Newton's gravity had known flaws long before being replaced by General Relativity, for example.

Once you beat it out of him, Farsight admits there is no physics to his physics, so this is all just mental masturbation - his idea isn't even an actual theory, much less one that is superior to GR. Nor does he ever actually show that GR has flaws that would motivate/necessitate finding a replacement for it in the first place.

No. The scientific method describes how to develop a working theory. It doesn't tell scientists how to pic one theory over another. Logically, it should be obvious though: you pick the theory that matches reality better.

That's a dream logic in physics. There is no ''one theory'' which fits reality better than any other really. There is no understanding of gravity at the fundamental level so... any assumptions about theories which describe it are redundant since half of them cannot even be tested.

That's a dream logic in physics. There is no ''one theory'' which fits reality better than any other really. There is no understanding of gravity at the fundamental level so... any assumptions about theories which describe it are redundant since half of them cannot even be tested.
That's not at all what he said. He's merely alluding to the encapsulation of principles which are instantiated into the next theory when new evidence becomes available. It's process of refinement, reiku. Science is not linear. It's organic. You would know that if you spent less time cutting and pasting stuff you ripped. And it would have helped if you had stayed in school. You and five of your cohorts/sock puppets who are . . . . fundamentalists? professional trolls for the Right Wing? who the hell are you people?

That's not at all what he said. He's merely alluding to the encapsulation of principles...

...Let me stop you there. Let me tell you about encapsulating principles... it's a beautiful thing. When you learn how to do it, I will talk to you. That means... you need to have something interesting and enlightening to say.

Maybe we will have a long time to wait.

All of the enlightenment you need, reiku can be got by enrolling in a freshman program in science.

All of the enlightenment you need, reiku can be got by enrolling in a freshman program in science.

Another sock puppet. LOL. The Reiku pariah has no respect for this forum. Zero respect for forum rules or any authority designated to enforce them. Or he's just trying for 'Ripley's believe or not' fame associated with total internet forum bans?

When the cat's away the mice will play? They're tag-teaming. It's a game. I see JamesR is online. I wonder if he'll let the hammer fall. If he's not tied up on other matters, I fully expect to see these threads moved South.

Farsight

There isn't any time flowing in those clocks, Grumpy. If it's a quartz clock it employs a piezoelectric vibrating crystal. If it's a mechanical clock it employs sprogs and cogs. If it's an optical clock it employs light emitted from a hyperfine transition. Whatever it employs, it goes slower when its slower because the thing it employs goes slower. It's that simple.

Clocks take a carefully measured cyclic process regulated by a process subject to time and count the cycles to measure the rate of time's passage. A muon created by the impact of a cosmic ray on oxygen molecules in the stratosphere is a clock, that muon has a fixed(in duration)time in which to exist before decaying into other particles. It's been measured with extreme accuracy in a lab at very low speeds. At near light speed they would only be expected to travel about a third of the distance to the ground in that amount of time(they can only go slower, going an even shorter distance). Why are those muons detectable at ground level? Relativistic Time Dilation.

"It turns out that as an object moves with relativistic speeds a "strange" thing seems to happen to its time as observed by "us" the stationary observer (observer in an inertial reference frame). What we see happen is that the "clock" in motion slows down according to our clock, therefore we read two different times. Which time is correct??? well they both are because time is not absolute but is relative, it depends on the reference frame. Let's look at the following classic example. There is a set of twins, one an astronaut, the other works for mission control of NASA. The astronaut leaves on a deep space trip traveling at 95% the speed of light. Upon returning the astronauts clock has measured ten years, so yhe astronaut has aged 10 years. However, when the astronaut reunites with his earth bound twin, the astronaut he sees that the twin has aged 32 years! This is explained due to the fact that the astronaut's twin is traveling at relativistic speeds and therefore his "clock" is slowed down."

Grumpy
Your feet are younger(in total experienced time)than your head simply because, other than when supine, they spend much more time on the floor. Some physicists even consider gravity to be dilated time, mass dilates time and it becomes infinite at a BH singularity(in theory, anyway), where time stops. While it may forever be impossible for us to know, I think what is beyond that horizon is a wormhole back to the Big Bang...
LOL. Science fiction.

No, scientific fact, your feet have experienced less time than your head, simply because your head is not as deep in a gravity well. Time Dilation due to Gravity.

"Gravitational time dilation is at play for ISS astronauts too, and it has the opposite effect of the relative velocity time dilation. To simplify, velocity and gravity each slow down time as they increase. Velocity has increased for the astronauts, slowing down their time, whereas gravity has decreased, speeding up time (the astronauts are experiencing less gravity than on Earth). Nevertheless, the ISS astronaut crew ultimately end up with "slower" time because the two opposing effects are not equally strong. The velocity time dilation (explained above) is making a bigger difference, and slowing down time. The (time-speeding up) effects of low-gravity would not cancel out these (time-slowing down) effects of velocity unless the ISS orbited much farther from Earth.
The key is that both observers are differently situated in their distance from a significant gravitational mass. The general theory of relativity describes how, for both observers, the clock that is closer to the gravitational mass, i.e. deeper in its "gravity well", appears to go more slowly than the clock that is more distant from the mass. This effect is not restricted to astronauts in space; a climber's time is passing slightly faster at the top of a mountain (a high altitude, farther from the Earth's center of gravity) compared to people at sea level. As with all time dilation, the local experience of time is normal (nobody notices a difference within their own frame of reference). In the situations of velocity time dilation, both observers saw the other as moving slower (a reciprocal effect). Now, with gravitational time dilation, both observers – those at sea level, versus the climber – agree that the clock nearer the mass is slower in rate, and they agree on the ratio of the difference (time dilation from gravity is therefore not reciprocal). That is, the climber sees the sea level clocks as moving more slowly, and those living at sea level see the climber as moving faster."

It's not my theory, it's Einstein's theory, and it isn't crap.

You don't even know the first thing about Relativity if you are claiming it contains anything but an invariant lightspeed.

"...the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest
. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the ﬁrst order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid
for all frames of reference
for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status
of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a deﬁnite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
"

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. EINSTEIN
June 30, 1905

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

This is the first paper on Special Relativity, in Einstein's own words. If this disagrees with something he said prior to this, then this supersedes that prior statement or idea.

He went on to include in any gravity field or acceleration(which are equivalent, you know)in his paper on General Relativity.

Game, set, match.

Grumpy

Hi Grumpy.

I must insist that the effects I describe are solid science. Lightspeed is constant, length, mass, energy and time's rate all change to the degree and in the direction necessary to insure lightspeed remains constant in all fields. And you singled out the change in the space dimension in the direction of travel. It is a fact that as mass approaches lightspeed it's "appearance" in the direction of travel flattens. At just below lightspeed the entire length of that mass's Universe becomes almost non existent to us. This effect can be seen in the LHC, proton/proton collisions give data on their density/length profiles, you can even tell, by the products and directions, whether the impact was dead center or oblique. The results of a few million such collisions give you their apparent shape(somewhat analogous to how Xray crystallography gave us the shape of the DNA molecule), that shape changes with speed, getting flatter the faster the particle goes relative to the observer. The contraction is not physical to the particle, to it is our length that appears contracted to it(this is all cause by Relative speed), it is a contraction of it's "yardstick" in the direction of travel, that contraction approaches infinity(in our frame)as a particle approaches lightspeed(relative to us). Lorentz was right. You cannot ignore the facts, mate.

Grumpy

Insistence doesn't answer the points raised/explained.

Your 'impressions' about what 'time' actually is, may be helped by further consideration of what Einstein said in the reference you provided in one of your posts above:

Einstein said:
Now we must bear carefully in mind
that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.” We have to take into
account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments
of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7
o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small hand of my
watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.”

It might appear possible to overcome all the diﬃculties attending the deﬁni-
tion of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
“time.” And in fact such a deﬁnition is satisfactory when we are concerned with
deﬁning a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no
longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring
at diﬀerent places, or—what comes to the same thing—to evaluate the times of
events occurring at places remote from the watch.
We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an
observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates,
and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals,
given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space.
But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the
standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience.

It's clear, that MATHEMATICAL time is predicated on energy-space EVENTS, not on some abstract 'time flow/entity' being mathematically derived VIA such events.

In other words, abstract 'time' is based in real energy-space transitions, motions, propagations etc EVENTS which are COMPARED and when 'simultaneous' can be compared to derive the MATHEMATICAL 'time' parameters which we include in the math models as the 'time dimension' GRAPHING AXIS 'representation' along which other real events are related to in 'geometry/duration' etc.

See? Those who read but do not actually understand what Einstein actually said/meant, have a totally misleading 'impression' of what mathematical time and clock events actually mean and what their function is and is NOT in the 'theory' which has been 'invaded by mathematicians' to the point that Einstein himself complained once that:

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more."---Einstein.

See, even as far back as then, the mathematicians overlaid so much UNREAL math/geometry abstraction onto the reality of Einstein's original insights/theory that the theory has become infested with philosophical/mathematical ABSTRACT NOTIONS which have gone far beyond the simple reality of LOCALLY REAL EVENTS in/across LOCALLY REAL ENERGY-SPACE (and NOT some ABSTRACT MATHEMATICAL 'time-space' convenient modeling construct however useful it may be up to a point).

Hence the PRINCIPLE of EQUIVALENCE makes the 'time' aspect a mathematical entity in GR as well as SR; and NOT a REAL THING which 'flows' through clocks. The only thing which flows through clocks is ENERGY FEATURES transitioning/interacting across SPACE, whether or not that ENERGY-SPACE has been 'conditioned' by a gravitating body or the 'features themselves' are affected internally by their motion/changes across/in energy-space background that is otherwise 'flat' (ie, not significantly affected by some body's gravity).

Did you read and understand fully my earlier post ( #118 ) where I pointed out about Sean Carroll et al proved that UNIVERSAL ENERGY-SPACE in its ground state is Euclidean (ie, 'flat') in all directions out to infinity beyond observable distances? And my further explanation that NON-Euclidean 'geometry' and 'spacetime' are MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATIONS of the dynamical 'timing' and 'configurational' interactions/relativities OF ENERGY-SPACE features arising, evolving and subsiding in that FLAT REAL SPACE? See? All the abstractions about mathematical 'spacetime' contraction and mathematical 'spacetime' NON-Euclidean geometry is just that: mathematical abstraction, and NOT real things.

And did you read my post ( #120 ) above (and my post #295 to Trippy in the other thread... http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140905-The-Speed-of-Light-is-Not-Constant/page15

...wherein I already explained (in REAL LOCAL ENERGY-SPACE terms and not in abstract 'spacetime' maths terms) how you may have the wrong 'impressions' from 'examples' being trotted out for the 'unreal' mathematical theoretical 'spacetime contraction interpretations' regarding what is happening in the Atmospheric Muon case and in the LHC accelerator scenarios?

If nothing else, I trust these newer real local perspectives/empirically referencing the simple straightforward observations (rather than depending on theoretical misunderstandings due to maths abstractions) will give anyone pause for further thought if they are serious about OBJECTIVELY understanding for REAL what Einstein's insights actually WERE for REAL, instead of continuing to 'believe' the misleading 'impressions' of Einstein's INSIGHTS and theory which the mathematically have abstracted to total incomprehensibility' (as Einstein has it).

Take care to actually consult the reality before accepting any old maths interpretation and 'explanations' which may not hold when closely reviewed in reality context. Especially in GR context where the actual energy-space mechanism which couples the background REAL energy-space (not unreal 'spacetime') to whatever perturbation features (particles, waves so called) arise, interact across/in and subside within that real energy-space. Abstractions and mathematics/geometry approaches only get us so far; now it's time (pun intended) to go the whole hog and take that final step BACK TO REALITY and have at least some chance to complete the integrated math-physics ToE for REAL.

Cheers, Grumpy! Stay alive, mate....if only to be there when that REAL ToE is published whole, including PHYSICAL NATURE/ORIGINS of MATTER/GRAVITY/INERTIA/TIMING/ENERGY/SPACE etc real explanations and real mechanisms. Hang in there, buddy, I'm being as quick as I can given the scope/complexity involved!

Last edited:
Once you beat it out of him, Farsight admits there is no physics to his physics, ..

Are you implying that there is no physics in Einstein's physics? Because that's what your rash opinion/statement implies; since my reading so far in this thread is that Farsight quotes Einstein and presents another interpretation based on what Einstein wrote.

Whether that interpretation differs from yours and why is the subject of this discussion, is it not?

So you just evading and personalizing and pretending that there is no physics in what Farsight QUOTES from Einstein, and which Farsight merely re-interprets strictly according to what Einstein actually said (rather than according to all the misleading/confused unreal maths/abstractions/interpretations which mathematicians have overlain it with), is neither here nor there in objective value/terms, is it?

Remember, Einstein also made clear way back when:

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more."---Einstein.
So the scope for MISUNDERSTANDING has increased exponentially because of all the maths abstractions/interpretations since then that seem to have taken Einstein's theory away into unreality jargon more and more removed from the reality insights Einstein came up with.

Try to play the ball not the man. Yes? Enjoy your OBJECTIVE and POLITE discussions.

There isn't any time flowing in those clocks, Grumpy. If it's a quartz clock it employs a piezoelectric vibrating crystal. If it's a mechanical clock it employs sprogs and cogs. If it's an optical clock it employs light emitted from a hyperfine transition. Whatever it employs, it goes slower when its slower because the thing it employs goes slower. It's that simple.
It really isn't that simple. There has been a lot of debate rather it is or not, but if you look at it mathematically it is more of a result of saying that the speed of light is constant and something else has to give. Normally, when you talk about baseballs or something you can just say that the baseball is seen to travel at a different speed when your moving in a car or something. Then light is calculated to where it doesn't act like a baseball in this same fashion. The equations make it to where light doesn't act like a baseball in this same way. The equations say that light is a constant so the amount of space or time you measured changed so that you still measure it travel at the same speed while moving in a vehicle. Then in experiments light was always measured to travel at the same speed even though the observer was in motion! Light is a strange entity indeed!

It varies by position in space. That's what Einstein said. He said that's why it curves. See the quotes in the OP here.
I have seen these quotes and they have been taken out of context. The last time I seen a quote from Einstein to prove this he was talking about coordinate speed. If space-time is curved and you are using normal coordinates that are unaltered then it would change in coordinate speed. Then it doesn't matter if the translation is really talking about velocity or speed in German!
You've got it back to front. A concentration of energy tied up as the matter of the Earth "conditions" the surrounding space. It alters it, the effect diminishing with distance. So light goes slower when its lower. So light veers like a car veers when it encounters mud at the side of the road. Einstein said a curvature of rays of light can only take place when the speed of light varies with position. See Ned Wright’s Deflection and Delay of Light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light”.
The coordinate speed would be different in flat Euclidean Mathematics.
LOL. Science fiction.
The part about a black hole taking you to the Big Bang was but the rest is accepted science.
Good man. That's what Einstein said:

"This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty."
This idea isn't based on Einstein. It is due to Quantum Physics. Einstein was unsuccessful in making space-time more of an actual thing even though I agree with him. It is accepted science that random particle pairs are created and annihilate each other randomly. It is also accepted in the scientific community that it violates conservation laws (even though it has not been fully accepted here yet). It is just that about every cubic meter a particle and it's antiparticle will randomly be created and then destroy each other, and no one knows why this happens just that it does.
No it isn't. Virtual particles are field quanta. Like you divide the field up into little chunks and say each one is a virtual particle. They aren't short-lived real particles popping in and out of existence. See Matt Strassler article for more:

http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...ysics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
Yes it is, as they have been detected directly from experiment that is the only real reason why they believe this happens. Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue, because the fact that particles just pop out of nothing would be complete hearsay. Also no one has proven that virtual particles are not real, they are just called such because they have a different mass than their normal everyday counterparts. It would be hard to prove that something with mass does not really exist!
It's not my theory, it's Einstein's theory, and it isn't crap.
He wasn't talking about Einsteins theory. You should pay closer attention to what Grumpy says. As far as I could tell he is the only one here that actually really knows his stuff. The internet has a bad way of taking quotes from famous scientist and building it up to mean that is how the actual science is. That is just because it only takes one bad quote or something out of context to then prove a point to a bunch of nobodies and then it is golden. It is just that you learned the basics of Einsteins theory from the internet so your interpretation of his theories is crap, and I would agree that any variable light speed theory wouldn't be any good.

It is just that inflation violates Einsteins speed of light limit, and it has started causing a stir in the scientific community. With a true understanding of relativity it is easy to see how it shouldn't be possible. Then all we can do is just cop out and say that the speed of light limit is just local, but that really doesn't explain anything. Inflation theory is still in its infancy, and a lot of work on it so far just explains how it happened and not how or why it happened that way. I think it would just take a more detailed theory on inflation in order to explain it. The main problem there is no one really knows where to start with it anyways.