I know that. I was just comparing terminology as used by professionals and amateurs, that's all. Nothing else intended. Cheers!
Luminiferous Aether Exists!
- Thread starter Mazulu
- Start date
I know that. I was just comparing terminology as used by professionals and amateurs, that's all. Nothing else intended. Cheers!
Nice poetry/prose. Very Zen.
Kind of zen, kind of not.
There is a difference between your two examples: dark energy/matter and luminiferous aether. You said it yourself. We know that dark energy and dark matter exist. There is evidence of something. Aether... not so much. There is nothing you can point to that says aether exits. If there was you would see it gain acceptance like dark energy has. It seems to me that aether enthusiasts want to do two things.
1) take some of the properties that are currently assigned to spacetime and assign them to some mystery undetectable fluid, gas, substance.
2) rework current theory or create new theory to make use of this aether.
It seems to me that it is just making a name for something already categorized under a different name. Not a huge difference that I can see. I think the word aether is an unfortunate choice. As I said it is an antique word from a time when everything was made of the 4 elements, earth, water, air and fire. Some add a 5th element but I digress.
If you noticed I read quant's theory and his dense sea of virtual photons was not something I was going to argue against. As I said, I thought his theory was interesting. Others have pointed out that it has problems but I did not complain about it. He said what his theory was and he described it in a way I understand what he meant (I think). It sounds like you have an aether theory too which I have not read, but perhaps it is not completely unreasonable. I don't know.
Mazulu's theory is a whole other ball game. Ignoring the fact that his theory is incomprehensible. It wonders off in to lala land. His theory is just a support structure for his gravity beam experiment. An experiment stupider than the bugblatter beast of Traal. It started out as flashing differently colored LEDs on and off in color sequence. Now it is a RF Chirp. He has billed it as a way to get FTL space travel. Travel to other universes. An infinite free energy source. And more. By manipulating the aether wave medium he will be able to control space (which is made of aether frequency waves), time (which is made of aether frequency waves), matter (which is made of aether frequency waves), and energy (which is made of aether frequency waves), and anything else you can imagine. This miracle medium can do anything. Anything you can think of. And stuff you can't even conceive of. And it violates many of the laws of physics. So that is what I have a problem with. That and the whole 'he got the idea from telepathic communication with spectral space aliens / god. If you want to embrace his theory, pat him on the back and say "well done, splendid theory." Go ahead. I won't.
Most of my replies to you are insincere. It is called sarcasm. For an explanation of sarcasm see the new south park episode Sarcastaball. Perhaps I should use Randy as my avatar so that you know I am being sarcastic. I can't help myself. I am out of control. !!! hehe
Sorry partner, but friends of space aliens ain't no friend of mine. No how, no way. I think we should round em up and send em back to the star system they came from. And not all in one piece if you catch my drift. We don't need their kind here. *spit*
Oh, I can tell you are very open with your thoughts. Perhaps you should put that in check.
You should realize (as I have) that if not for people (esp me) posting nasty mean comments to you in your threads, your threads would die out immediately. They are not that interesting except from the crazy loony bin POV. I keep them going so that I can ridicule your ideas and your space alien friends. Mostly the space aliens. Did I tell you how much I hate em. Here is a tip. When you aim your weapon at a space alien, aim for the head. That's where the puddin' is. And don't forget the double tap.
Not sure you have that right way round. The earliest assumptions from observation/theory about gravity and the 'vacuum' etc was based on the reasonable assumption that 'something' was there to support the phenomena/propagation of change etc etc. between ponderable matter etc. Just as 'fields' are an abstraction from 'media' whose characteristic properties/phenomena are made into symbolic mathematical entities, the 'space-time' is an abstraction from the universal 'medium' which was originally assumed to exist as a background physical energy-space context for everything to 'happen in'. Just because we use mathematical abstractions/constructs for treating/analysing theories and concepts, it does not ipso facto actually remove the physical entities/assumptions from which these abstractions were made in the first place.
That is the whole point nowadays after all the recent discoveries that the vacuum is not 'nothing'. With every new 'field' and every unknown 'entity' which science discovers, the 'nothingness' is becoming more crowded with energy-space background 'things' which when taken together form a pretty mixed/media sort of background that has a physics and dynamics all its own, and with which features in our observable range may or may not interact with at every level. Hence the higgs field only affects some things; while electro-magnetic fields affect others; and so on. How do we know all these 'fields' are not just a unified field which manifests AS certain aspects depending on what 'things' are interacting with which part of the unified whole field/medium?
That is what I meant about "Dark' terminology. It does the job of sidestepping the need to actually show what is happening and what 'field' is active at that level of whatever the 'Dark' thing is.
Yes, I have been patiently and thoroughly developing my TOE from scratch and with the minimum (one only) of hypotheses as a starting point....from whence the rest followed consistently without the need fro further ad hoc hypotheses to arrive at a complet TOE which includes self-explanatory descriptions/properties/effects of energy-space, matter, gravity, inertia-mass etc etc up to the nature/structure of particles from the most fundamental upwards. All without the 'gaps' and brick walls which the various partial theories come up against because of their ad hoc evolution and inconsistent hypotheses/domains of validity perforce. I hope to finish things soon and publish (I'm still working out some animations/simulations...expensive and time consuming when attempting to illustrate/demonstrate a TOE from go to whoa!).
And I don't care either way where Mazulu gets his inspiration from; nor to what or whom he attributes his insights/motivations etc etc. Scientists don't have time for such personal time-consuming stuff which only gets in the way of understanding salient points. I leave all that stuff alone. I am atheist and rationalist and human being who lives and lets live if it does no-one any harm or infringe on anyone's rights and liberty. Not my business.
Anyhow, I do not 'just accept' Mazulu's or anyone's theories/hypotheses/ideas; I entertain/understand them open-mindedly and applaud/encourage genuine efforts at new ideas/perspectives irrespective of their provenance. It is most useful to look at every angle as a 'sounding board' for my own TOE perspective. Besides, no experiments are 'wasted' if one learns something from them in the end; and as I always say, who knows what serendipitous 'find' might result from Mazulu's honest efforts? It won't be the first time in history that something was found when looking for something else entirely! The professionals and amateurs/outsiders have done some great things in history from pure serendipitous events! I don't want to be the one to begrudge Mazulu the opportunity of coming up with something quite by accident! It's his time and idea. What is life/science if one doesn't follow his ideas/curiosity just for the hell of it? That is what pure research and undirected experimental brainstorming is all about! Even many animals do it, so why shouldn't us human beings who has the time/inclination do it also?
Gotta go. Goodnight, Cheezle, everyone! Cheers.
Well, I guess I had it wrong. I was under the assumption that the Michaelson-Morley experiment was meant to find the luminiferous aether. A substance that does not really seem to be anything like what you are proposing. I guess Michaelson and Morley were not in touch with all the latest aether theories of their time. They didn't find it which was somewhat of a shock to most from what I understood. They had expected to find it. But you obviously would know more about that being a aether expert of sorts. And then a few years later we have Einstein and his theory which is more of a geometric theory of spacetime. I gather that Einstein did say some stuff about the aether but it did not make it into his theory. Wonder why not? Since Einstein's theory the aether has not had much traction. But I may have that wrong. There may have always been a very active majority aether constituency out there. But I don't read much on that subject so never heard of it.
Well, good luck with your theory. I am sure it will be very successful. <--- sorry, I slipped into sarcastic mode there. Must stop that.
All in good fun there. Good luck. <---- oops. Did it again.
Just caught your post as I was about to log out for the night.
Thanks anyway! Don't worry, sarcasm is ok when between friends.
Goodnight, good luck and good thinking to you Cheezle, Mazulu, everyone! Follow your dreams if ever you get the chance. Life is too vivid to waste with dreamless wanderings through this universe of wonderful possibilities waiting to be made reality by dreamers!
Your friend in Science and Humanity,
RealityCheck.
Dreaming is one thing, but just making stuff up as you go is another.
This isn't dreaming in the way of ingenuity. It's dreaming in the way of making things up to answer a gut feeling largely based on experience in the sensible world which has no apparent connection to this other than a dreamed-up connection which tries to force one world to behave like the other. Calling this a medium is non sequitur. Medium of what? Once lightspeed was measured and found to be constant, the fact of propagation "in the vacuum" was settled.
What kind of dream (as in ingenuity) sets out to discredit settled science without a shred of evidence to give cause for it? Why do people who take this tack rely on their morbid view that the world will catch on some day, if only all of science is first set aside?
This would seem to contain more of the elements of a nightmare than of a dream.
What is the connection between vacuum fluctuations or vacuum energy and wave propagation? The problem I see with this kind of reasoning is that it's falling back to the 19th century search for the molecular sea merely because it seems necessary in the sensible world. The presence or absence of vacuum fluctuations or energy does not in itself impute any connection with wave propagation. If it did, all the textbooks would be in revision.RealityCheck said:
This isn't dreaming in the way of ingenuity. It's dreaming in the way of making things up to answer a gut feeling largely based on experience in the sensible world which has no apparent connection to this other than a dreamed-up connection which tries to force one world to behave like the other. Calling this a medium is non sequitur. Medium of what? Once lightspeed was measured and found to be constant, the fact of propagation "in the vacuum" was settled.
What kind of dream (as in ingenuity) sets out to discredit settled science without a shred of evidence to give cause for it? Why do people who take this tack rely on their morbid view that the world will catch on some day, if only all of science is first set aside?
This would seem to contain more of the elements of a nightmare than of a dream.
If you knew my dreams you would not wish me to follow them. People might get hurt. Some of us have things in out pasts that were not all butterflies and daisies in sunshine meadows. Oh I get it, by dreams you meant goals. Sorry. Missed the metaphor. <--- Sarcasm
Your super-egalitarianism rubs me the wrong way. Ideas are not all created equal. They should not be treated as such. In order for our knowledge base to evolve. The ideas have to compete. Some have to be weeded out. Treating all ideas as equal is stupid. If an idea is just plain out wrong. It should not be considered. It should buried in the ground covered with quicklime.
I am glad I brought up the subject of the south park episode. In it the boys are on a football team. And in a sarcastic fit Randy the coach suggests that for safety sake, the team should all wear bras, the ball would be replaced with a balloon and points would be awarded by complimenting the members of the other team, giving them hugs, and helping them to win. The idea is that games are about having fun and not winning. That seems to be your attitude here. I am not a fan of such ideas.
When you say stuff like
It makes me want to retch. I picture you being a child of hippies, and that you went to a super progressive school where you were mollycoddled. Maybe your name is Rainbow Sky, son of Sunshine and Storm at the commune. Sorry man, you need to grow some balls and get out in the real world.
Regardless, (or is it irregardless) you should not be wasting your time convincing me of anything. I took physics in high school but our teacher was the spanish teacher because the physics teacher got fired. I learned zip. In University I took Intro to Physics which was not what you would call rigorous. I did take a little more maths than most, but after 35 years, its mostly been forgotten. Trying to get it back. I have read some books. Have a basic understanding. So I am not your audience. Despite your cheery egalitarian composure, you picked me to reply to because I seem to be "easy pickings." Well convincing me of anything means about zilch.
I find your arguments to be mostly hand waving. And not in the G. E. Moore sense of hand waving. Your entire argument for the aether is composed of arguments similar to King Arthur explaining how he got coconuts. There is no evidence for aether. If there was it would be big news and we would all hear about it the same way we laymen hear about Dark Energy. The "science" segment on the regular news media. The recent brouhaha about neutrinos traveling faster than light proves that the scientific community is not conspiring to stifle theories even aether theories. If aether is real it will eventually be discovered. But only after evidence is found. It is an easy thing to understand.
Sorry to go off like a firecracker on you. No hard feelings Mate. <--- crap I did it again!
If we were to meet I picture you and me replaying this scene from the Big Lebowski.
Me: I like your style, Dude.
You: Well, I dig your style too, man. Got the whole cowboy thing goin'.
Me: Thankee.
I dig your style.You: Well, I dig your style too, man. Got the whole cowboy thing goin'.
Me: Thankee.
Nope, I consider that perfectly normal. In fact, I have two cats and a dog and talk to all three. And we can practically have what would be short conversations at times. That's because they recognize the meaning of several words and I know their personality and reactions so well that I can often tell exactly what they are thinking. And yes, the affection is there also and goes way beyond them wanting food or a treat.
But thats a far cry from claiming that I have personal contact with some kind of ET.
These statements taken together are inaccurate. You will not find many physicists who say space, is completely empty and without some intrinsic properties of its own. Part of the problem is a mixing of concepts here. You don't seem to understand the distinction between space and spacetime. Nor do you seem to be able to separate the way what we know of the world is conceptualized within the context of the two major theories ( GR and QM), addressing the issues discussed. (Though I have to admit, I often post using, the terminology "space/space-time", without detailed explanation, which could be interpreted similarly.)
GR in its description of spacetime, does not explain the mechanism through which space and matter interact, only how they interact, in a manner consistent with experience and supported by observation and experiement.
QM does not define space in the same way that GR does. Something that seems to be scale dependent... But, QM does attempt or is attempting to find an explanation for that unanswered question, defining the mechanism through which what we understand to be space or even spacetime, emerges from more fundamental mechanisms.
The idea that space is utterly or completely empty and devoid of any independent intrinsic characteristics, is a lay interpretation and misunderstanding, of the physics. The fact that we at present have no diffinitive answer or explanation for something, is far different from saying that there is none.
I agree that it can be very disconcerting to try and communicate with people with preconceived ideas, especially those who are smug and arrogant about them ! Could you help me out here, because I have always wanted to know? One of the reasons for the complete failure of classical physics was that if a charged particle moving at velocity radiated energy, then atoms should not exist. The reasoning behind this was that an electron is a charged particle, it is moving at velocity around the nucleus of the atom, therefore, in no time at all, it should radiate away all its energy and spiral into the nucleus. Any thoughts or explanation on why this does not happen ? I know that this is probably a pretty stale question, but if you feel up to the strain, could you reply ?:bugeye:
First of all there is no complete failure of classical physics, lots of classical physics is applicable!
The reason that an electron does not radiate energy and 'fall' into the nucleus is explained by QM. There are really 2 aspects, the first is a bound electron cannot radiate photons at just any energy, it can only radiate specific amount of energy. The second reason is that the electron is not like a little BB flying around the nucleus, it is 'smeared' out into an orbital. The electron is more like a standing wave that occupies the orbital. The shape of the orbital is a defined by the energy of the electon and the attraction of the nucleus.
I can see where you're coming from. No probs. That's your prerogative.
But this is about reality, not abstractions, no matter how beautiful or useful they may be.
For instance, to follow your logic on just continuing with abstractions of light propagation in a non-medium because we have no knowledge of a medium, is like saying we can continue with abstraction of electric current and just assume that the copper wire does not exist.
See? It's not that the abstractions are questioned AS the abstractions per se, its that such abstractions do NOT remove the onus for scientists to actually try to ALSO keep trying to discover what REALITY (medium or whatever) that abstraction is based ON and happening IN.
It's not an either or situation; it's a one AND the other approaches towards getting REAL PHYSICAL completion of the TOE rather than just indefinite abstraction upon abstraction while pretending the underlying fundamental aspects which gave rise to those abstractions do not interest us anymore.
That's where I am coming from. My science is aimed at reality discovery/explanation, not just adding to the current fashion for abstraction without end.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Like I said, sarcasm between friends is fine. No sweat.
But that is where we have the disconnect. My 63yrs study/experience has shown me that all ideas ARE 'created equal'. Only the consideration given to them may differ in both quantity/quality, depending on the idea and the immediate interest or not which that idea induces in the author/other. When it comes to science, every idea that challenges the current understandings will either stand or fall on their merits after due scrutiny/discussion. That is all I am about. Why should I dismiss an idea just because it comes from someone I may not like or consider ignorant? It's the idea that speaks, not the source. Any scientist that has not yet learned that lesson is doomed to missing much understanding/insight opportunities. History is replete with examples where the amateur/outsider/layman has come up with something missed by the professional/expert. Humans come in many situations/opportunities circumstances, just because one hasn't been inculcated in a certain way does not necessarily diminish their innate capacity for pattern-recognition and discontinuity regions (both in space and in logic). Nature has provided humans with a survival toolkit based on intelligence and 'what ifs' to compare observations to memorized and extrapolated information about the world around us. The scientific method and education merely make certain aspects more accessible/reproducible; but at root is the individual observation and pattern-recognition etc facility at work subconsciously. That's what 'idiot savants' and 'untrained geniuses' etc etc demonstrate all the time through history.
I am not a sports fan. Too many drugs and politics, and the ideal has been lost (if it was ever there to begin with). I am not a naive hippy feelgood, as you imply. Being an immigrant child with the hardest working parents to be found anywhere, and having to earn everything I have ever got, just made me realize there are more important things than hate, ego, greed, abuse of power etc etc. You don't need to be a 'sissy' to appreciate the lessons of life. If humanity is to survive into our next phase of global society, then the number of people on this planet even now makes it imperative we co-operate or perish. No hippy. Just realist.
It is the positive thinking/acting that will solve our seemingly intractable global problems. Science is at the forefront of that. It should not be risked through insensitive behaviour/prejudices of those who would be scientists, since any further disrespect for science and scientists which bad behaviour produces in the global population will come back and bite us all. Being positive and supportive of anyone who is prepared to sacrifice their time and efforts in trying to come up with solutions is only the sensible thing to do. It has nothing to do with 'sport' or 'philosophy' or 'sarcasm' or other personal likes/dislikes, it has to do with facing the realities together or perishing separately.
That is probably because you bring your own 'take' to it rather than understanding why it was said in the context of science in the twenty-first century and into the longer term.
As a migrant child I went to a public school (ie, Australian govt. school, not private...I was atheist from age nine and remain so to this day). I continued into tertiary education at tech/university (night and day classes/course) and my own researches. Working a full time job and paying my own way all the way. Nothing 'mollycoddled' about me. My parents, siblings and extended family were loving and supportive.
Nothing particularly 'sinister' in that, I trust? (Sarcasm....as between friends!).
When memory gets full, the trick is to jettison what is learned by rote and concentrate on questioning and understanding anew all that which you assumed to be correct because it was assumed to be correct by others before you. It is only then that your true education/understanding begins to dawn about the universe and society and life and reality in which you function/observe.
Herd mentality is all well and useful when in a herd of sheep, but an individual brain-mind needs more than just 'cover' and 'safety in numbers' if he is to go exploring where no-one has been before. This is true in any field of original endeavour. The pedestrian is comfortable/complacent, but not necessarily in possession of the facts of the reality which the explorer finds and has not yet communicated 'back home'. That's how I view all would-be experimenters/ideas-people who follow their curiosity/dreams instead of the herd instinct. You can laugh, but then you are not in any position to judge others according to your own standards unless you have walked a mile in the shoes of the explorer, whoever they may be or wherever they got their thirst to find out by their own efforts where the existing story does not satisfy that need to know.
My arguments? Nothing like it yet. My TOE has not yet been published. And my forays here and elsewhere on the (four) discussion sites I post in occasionally were investigations into others takes on everything, and whatever I may have posted about my own perspective has been as part of 'researching' and 'sounding boarding' etc. You have not yet seen any complete arguments from me, but merely comments/alternative vies when discussing others alternative views. Occasionally I make hypotheses to test what others have to say about a subject I am interested in comparing views on, but that's about it. Until you do have my complete perspective, you don't actually know what my 'arguments' are, but merely see piecemeal challenges/questions/discussions with others about the merits of others arguments.
No problem, mate. Common understandings don't come easy....even between friends. One has to work hard and take the occasional temper tantrum in one's stride if a friendship is worth it......for the sake of science and humanity. Cheers!
Last edited:
Hi RealityCheck,
First, I want to say that I respect you as a fair-minded and thoughtful person. Second, I want to tip my hat to you for having the cognitive depth to see and understand that there is a "fundamental medium". OK, now we can disagree on its properties.
Let me explain this fundamental medium. Energy comes into existence by virtue of its gravitational image. Positive energy +E exists as particles and light. Negative energy -E exists as gravity/curvature of space-time (the fundamental medium). The Free Energy Universe hypothesis makes the most sense. At the quantum scale, this medium is made of waves. These waves carry energy as electromagnetic radiation (the Poynting vector). We describe these waves as quantum wave-functions. But these waves are fundamentally $$c = \lambda f = \frac{1}{sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}$$. Energy is something that expresses itself through these waves. Energy and gravity want to neutralize each other; but they are fundamentally different and cannot recombine. Nevertheless they can interact with each other. We see them interact as gravitational redshift. In our experience, gravity (curvature of the medium) is known to overpower light. Question: is it possible that light, particularly the repetition of frequency chirps, can overpower the medium and curve it? The experiment has never been tried. If it works, it is possible that new energy could be brought into existence; theoretically, energy could also be removed from existence as well. The energy will be in the form of motion of objects accelerated by space-time curvature.
All mass (energy) is trying to recombine with it's gravitational image through the medium. It's sort of like electrons traveling from GND to Vcc. As a metaphor, the gravity drive is equivalent to creating a potential difference between Vcc and GND by moving electrons. Only it's not an electrical potential, it's a gravitational potential.
First, I want to say that I respect you as a fair-minded and thoughtful person. Second, I want to tip my hat to you for having the cognitive depth to see and understand that there is a "fundamental medium". OK, now we can disagree on its properties.
Let me explain this fundamental medium. Energy comes into existence by virtue of its gravitational image. Positive energy +E exists as particles and light. Negative energy -E exists as gravity/curvature of space-time (the fundamental medium). The Free Energy Universe hypothesis makes the most sense. At the quantum scale, this medium is made of waves. These waves carry energy as electromagnetic radiation (the Poynting vector). We describe these waves as quantum wave-functions. But these waves are fundamentally $$c = \lambda f = \frac{1}{sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}$$. Energy is something that expresses itself through these waves. Energy and gravity want to neutralize each other; but they are fundamentally different and cannot recombine. Nevertheless they can interact with each other. We see them interact as gravitational redshift. In our experience, gravity (curvature of the medium) is known to overpower light. Question: is it possible that light, particularly the repetition of frequency chirps, can overpower the medium and curve it? The experiment has never been tried. If it works, it is possible that new energy could be brought into existence; theoretically, energy could also be removed from existence as well. The energy will be in the form of motion of objects accelerated by space-time curvature.
All mass (energy) is trying to recombine with it's gravitational image through the medium. It's sort of like electrons traveling from GND to Vcc. As a metaphor, the gravity drive is equivalent to creating a potential difference between Vcc and GND by moving electrons. Only it's not an electrical potential, it's a gravitational potential.
Hi Mazulu.
Respect returned, in kind and in full.
I understand your perspective. My only comment is that in my TOE from scratch and logically 'self-generated' perspective from one independent starting point only, energy-space is all there is 'fundamentally'.
All else is perturbation and features in that fundamental energy-space.
Regarding gravity, I already mentioned that gravity in my TOE perspective emerges once the energy-space produces localized perturbations/features which affect the energy-space around it (just as GR alludes to but cannot explain as to what it IS that is doing the effect, what it IS that is being 'affected'; and how it comes about between matter and energy-space).
Again, the 'fundamental medium' of my self-determined TOE is all there is at root of 'everything'. Everything else comes from that and returns to that as the inherent properties/dynamics of that fundamental medium allow. So when you say that
...it is obvious that your perspective has the energy manifesting 'because of' the gravity effect, rather than the other way round: namely, the gravity effect emerges from matter features manifesting in the fundamental energy-space as in my perspective (and as in GR, except that GR does not provide the mechanism/cause whereas my TOE does logically and consistently without any fuss or abstract GR woo-woo that explains no mechanism for it at all in Relativity theory as it stands....only describes/predicts effects and that's it).Mazulu said:
Because I have arrived at the TOE from a single starting point (independent physical concept); and because the TOE thereafter practically evolved itself logically from that starting point without the need for any ad hoc assumptions or features/concepts to be put in by hand, I trust the completeness and applicability of my TOE above any that does have all that ad hocness about it, and that hasn't started from a completely independent starting concept and evolved consistently through to cover everything that it takes to make our universe what it is and how it works.
Anyhow, I can't say any more, as I am soon to publish my work and I don't want to let certain cats out of the bag too soon. I also don't want to get bogged down in discussions all over the place about my TOE. The time could be better spent actually finalizing everything and publishing asap.
I applaud your own efforts, as no genuine search for reality via thought and experiment is ever wasted. Who knows what may come from your own efforts that may be totally unexpected!
Cheers and good luck and good thinking to you Mazulu, everyone!
I'm talking about a loophole to conservation of energy. Energy-mass generates a gravity field. if new energy is created, then it will generate a gravity field too. Conservation of energy says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So where did the energy of the big bang come from? Since all energy generates a gravity field (negative energy) then technically the net energy of the universe is zero. A repetition of frequency chirps might be a way to curve space-time. That could cause objects to fall in the gravity field. If they fall, then new energy is created. That new energy generates a gravity field of negative energy. The negative energy of gravity balances the positive energy of mass-energy to zero.
A repetition of frequency chirps is equivalent to an energy spigot.
Hi Mazulu.
I was just about to call it a day and saw this when I checked before logging out; so I don't have much time....
Well, whether there was big bang or not, the energy-space was always there. That is my TOE's perspective on that. So, since there was always energy-space, then it is the dynamics of the energy-space that determine what happens and evolves and subsides in its dynamics. The point that the matter feature starts off the gravity effect does not require any violation of energy-space conservation principles, since that energy-space 'reservoir' is 'always on' and 'always there in full measure'. So no energy-space 'conservation breaking' is involved in my TOE perspective. Hence I cannot say one way or the other where your postulated 'loophole' may reside for you to exploit in the manner you postulate. That is not to say that your experiment may not 'show up' some other subtle effect totally different from what you are chasing as described. That's all I have time for mate. Anyhow, I can't see where I can say anything more about it since I have a different take on it because of my TOE perspective which doesn't indicate any logical/physical cause/mechanism for such a 'loophole' as you posit. Goodnight and good luck, mate!
OH, before I forget, in my consistent TOE's perspective, there is actually no such thing/necessity to distinguish energy-space as 'negative energy' and 'positive energy'. In absolute terms therein it is all just energy-space. Any 'negative'/positive labels are just descriptions of the 'behaviour' of that energy-space quotient in the dynamics locally. Globally, there is no need for that distinction. Cheers.
Like Mazulu's space alien friends, I have a supernatural power. I can see the future. And I see you releasing your big TOE and never truly accepting any criticism of it. It will not matter how good the evidence or counter argument is, you will be unable to accept it. You will continue to use this facade of the cheery Australian bloke that is easy going and accepting of the ideas of others, but just behind that is a solid concrete wall of denial.
I will be there reading all the discussion, probably not commenting, but I will be nodding my head and smiling every time your idea takes a hit and you deny it all.