No force. Everyone agrees this is true and that it has been “proven”

That's not exactly true. People do not agree this is "not a force" and not everyone agrees that "GR has been proven." Most people who do work on unification theories are looking past GR, or even suggesting that it is completely wrong (see MOND). There are many such endeavors into gravity. Any quantized gravity theory is by necessity a divorcing of the core tools of GR (the rubber spacetime analogy).

That whole rubber sheet thing is used as a teaching tool. Once you get to the point where you start digging into it, people no longer hold onto that very tightly. Physics is a mathematical model of reality. Those ideas that allow us to explain the math aren't really adhered to in the exploration of alternate theories of gravity.

Really the rubber sheet thing is just another word for aether, although so is "spacetime foam" from QED.

GR is taught the rubbery way, especially at the lower level, but it is recognized by those that work on it that that is only a guide to understanding what the math of the theory suggests, and not an essential axiom, nor a fundamental property of the universe.

Marrying all forces requires that gravity be a force. The idea of the graviton is, as suggested above in a way an automatic divorce from GR. Any mathematical theory that is proposed must be at least as accurate as GR is within the scope that GR is accurate (which is actually only on relatively short scales without the addition of make believe material and/or energies). Thus a proposed graviton (particle of gravity information, i.e. a force carrier) isn't following a rubbery path, but a path that would look rubbery on a non-quantum scale.

What is mass anyway?

What an amazing question. This question has vexxed me my whole life.

Atm I am thinking perhaps a deformation (change in what is experienced externally) of what would be otherwise chaotic restricted (quantized) waveforms of the universe (i.e. an all pervasive energy field) due to a "knotting" (vortex?) of that same... whatever.

I'm not sure if that came out quite right. It makes perfect sense in my head. :)

some quasars would be moving away from us faster than the speed of light

Because there is no restriction on the speed of "space," there is no restriction on the speed of quasars. There isn't really even a restriction on objects moving close by either. The speed of light is really more of "the speed of information" (AKA causality).

I did my senior paper on warp bubbles. (Solutions to the Alcubierre metric. Yes, I was that kind of student. My teachers either loved me or hated me.) The point is, it is perfectly fine to get from point A to point B faster than something taking the "normal" path, would travel, at least within the math of GR, because "the speed of light" relies on space; so just change space. The accelerated expansion of the universe (which requires "Dark Energy" if one adheres to GR) is just such a changing of space, therefore there is no problem for distant sources to move faster than light. The only problems come (within our theories) when we ask about the information from those sources. It is the information that reaches us that took c time to get here (according to GR).

Original thinking not allowed.

Yes, this is mostly true, just not 100% true. I had a few teachers that allowed it, and a couple that encouraged it. I think the PTB (and thus our education system in general) discourage it, and then they pluck up those who succeed at it despite their best efforts, and incorporate them into their control mechanisms. I.e. they scoop up the cream that rises to the top.

the illuminati are in control of what is taught (in graduate schools too).

Of this I have no doubt whatsoever. I saw many discrepancies between what was allowed, and what occurred in the research-space long before I "woke the fuck up." I thought it was ego that drove people away from looking at evidence of fringe science. Now I realize it has always been something much more sinister.

No force. Everyone agrees this is true and that it has been “proven”

That's not exactly true. People do not agree this is "not a force" and not everyone agrees that "GR has been proven." Most people who do work on unification theories are looking past GR, or even suggesting that it is completely wrong (see MOND). There are many such endeavors into gravity. Any quantized gravity theory is by necessity a divorcing of the core tools of GR (the rubber spacetime analogy).

That whole rubber sheet thing is used as a teaching tool. Once you get to the point where you start digging into it, people no longer hold onto that very tightly. Physics is a mathematical model of reality. Those axioms that allow us to explain the math aren't really adhered to in the exploration of alternate theories of gravity.

Really the rubber sheet thing is just another word for aether, although so is "spacetime foam" from QED.

GR is taught the rubbery way, especially at the lower level, but it is recognized by those that work on it that that is only a guide to understanding what the math of the theory suggests, and not an essential axiom, nor a fundamental property of the universe.

Marrying all forces requires that gravity be a force. The idea of the graviton is, as suggested above in a way an automatic divorce from GR. Any mathematical theory that is proposed must be at least as accurate as GR is within the scope that GR is accurate (which is actually only on relatively short scales without the addition of make believe material and/or energies). Thus a proposed graviton (particle of gravity information, i.e. a force carrier) isn't following a rubbery path, but a path that would look rubbery on a non-quantum scale.

What is mass anyway?

What an amazing question. This question has vexxed me my whole life.

Atm I am thinking perhaps a deformation (change in what is experienced externally) of what would be otherwise chaotic restricted (quantized) waveforms of the universe (i.e. an all pervasive energy field) due to a "knotting" (vortex?) of that same... whatever.

I'm not sure if that came out quite right. It makes perfect sense in my head. :)

some quasars would be moving away from us faster than the speed of light

Because there is no restriction on the speed of "space," there is no restriction on the speed of quasars. There isn't really even a restriction on objects moving close by either. The speed of light is really more of "the speed of information" (AKA causality).

I did my senior paper on warp bubbles. (Solutions to the Alcubierre metric. Yes, I was that kind of student. My teachers either loved me or hated me.) The point is, it is perfectly fine to get from point A to point B faster than something taking the "normal" path, would travel, at least within the math of GR, because "the speed of light" relies on space; so just change space. The accelerated expansion of the universe (which requires "Dark Energy" if one adheres to GR) is just such a changing of space, therefore there is no problem for distant sources to move faster than light. The only problems come (within our theories) when we ask about the information from those sources. It is the information that reaches us that took c time to get here (according to GR).

Original thinking not allowed.

Yes, this is mostly true, just not 100% true. I had a few teachers that allowed it, and a couple that encouraged it. I think the PTB (and thus our education system in general) discourage it, and then they pluck up those who succeed at it despite their best efforts, and incorporate them into their control mechanisms. I.e. they scoop up the cream that rises to the top.

the illuminati are in control of what is taught (in graduate schools too).

Of this I have no doubt whatsoever. I saw many discrepancies between what was allowed, and what occurred in the research-space long before I "woke the fuck up." I thought it was ego that drove people away from looking at evidence of fringe science. Now I realize it has always been something much more sinister.

No force. Everyone agrees this is true and that it has been “proven”

That's not exactly true. People do not agree this is "not a force" and not everyone agrees that "GR has been proven." Most people who do work on unification theories are looking past GR, or even suggesting that it is completely wrong (see MOND). There are many such endeavors into gravity. Any quantized gravity theory is by necessity a divorcing of the core tools of GR (the rubber spacetime analogy).

That whole rubber sheet thing is used as a teaching tool. Once you get to the point where you start digging into it, people no longer hold onto that very tightly. Physics is a mathematical model of reality. Those axioms that allow us to explain the math aren't really adhered to in the exploration of alternate theories of gravity.

Really the rubber sheet thing is just another word for aether, although so is "spacetime foam" from QED.

GR is taught the rubbery way, especially at the lower level, but it is recognized by those that work on it that that is only a guide to understanding what the math of the theory suggests, and not an essential axiom, nor a fundamental property of the universe.

Marrying all forces requires that gravity be a force. The idea of the graviton is, as suggested above in a way an automatic divorce from GR. Any mathematical theory that is proposed must be at least as accurate as GR is within the scope that GR is accurate (which is actually only on relatively short scales without the addition of make believe material and/or energies).

What is mass anyway?

What an amazing question. This question has vexxed me my whole life.

Atm I am thinking perhaps a deformation (change in what is experienced externally) of what would be otherwise chaotic restricted (quantized) waveforms of the universe (i.e. an all pervasive energy field) due to a "knotting" (vortex?) of that same... whatever.

I'm not sure if that came out quite right. It makes perfect sense in my head. :)

some quasars would be moving away from us faster than the speed of light

Because there is no restriction on the speed of "space," there is no restriction on the speed of quasars. There isn't really even a restriction on objects moving close by either. The speed of light is really more of "the speed of information" (AKA causality).

I did my senior paper on warp bubbles. (Solutions to the Alcubierre metric. Yes, I was that kind of student. My teachers either loved me or hated me.) The point is, it is perfectly fine to get from point A to point B faster than something taking the "normal" path, would travel, at least within the math of GR, because "the speed of light" relies on space; so just change space. The accelerated expansion of the universe (which requires "Dark Energy" if one adheres to GR) is just such a changing of space, therefore there is no problem for distant sources to move faster than light. The only problems come (within our theories) when we ask about the information from those sources. It is the information that reaches us that took c time to get here (according to GR).

Original thinking not allowed.

Yes, this is mostly true, just not 100% true. I had a few teachers that allowed it, and a couple that encouraged it. I think the PTB (and thus our education system in general) discourage it, and then they pluck up those who succeed at it despite their best efforts, and incorporate them into their control mechanisms. I.e. they scoop up the cream that rises to the top.

the illuminati are in control of what is taught (in graduate schools too).

Of this I have no doubt whatsoever. I saw many discrepancies between what was allowed, and what occurred in the research-space long before I "woke the fuck up." I thought it was ego that drove people away from looking at evidence of fringe science. Now I realize it has always been something much more sinister.