Just because something has a wavelength does not mean it is only a wave. Particles have properties that are not part of electromagnetic fields.
You are confused again. The meaning of Waves of Nothing is not confined to the EM field, it is all the fields, even gravitational fields. The Nothing is the Fields.
All of the accurate equations are wave equations, physicists use point equations to simplify everything. like the spherical horse joke.
Particle vs. Wave: False issue. Go to the literature. When the wavelength is arguably shorter than the thing under discussion, it makes sense to call it a "particle." When the wave nature is significant for the phenomena under consideration, then it makes sense to call it a wave.
You are basically agreeing that it makes sense to call everything a wave. We are just disagreeing on the wavelength.
Gravity gradient stabilization of satellites depends on the "tidal" effect of the gravity field.
The "tidal" effect of the gravity field is due to the gravitational pull of another body. I assume you are talking about the effect that the moon is tidally locked to the earth, we only see one side of the moon. This isn't applicable to the accelerating elevator example.
As for gravity, go argue with Van Flandern (good trick!). You can't have gravitational waves traveling at the speed of light if they are from far away, and then traveling instantaneously if they are near by.
Again you misunderstand what I wrote, I'll try and restate it clearly. Gravity waves propagate through the gravitational field at the speed of light, the effects of the gravitational field are instantaneous on those bodies in it.
Do you have conclusive proof that gravity is not mediated by gauge bosons? That would be worth a Nobel Prize.
Einstein shows that gravity is the curvature of SpaceTime not gauge bosons. Gauge bosons are force exchange 'particles' while gravity is not a force. It is your responsibility to prove the existence of gravitons to prove gravity is a force.
When you get to the point of denying established physics and technology working with that physics, I see no purpose in continuing the conversation.
You have already conceded that everything is waves of nothing, so I agree that you should withdraw from the conversation.
You are trying to duck the fact that observations from the interior of the elevator can tell the difference between being uniformly accelerated and being in a gravity field.
No I am not ducking the issue, there is no difference between being uniformly accelerated and being in a gravity field. If you think there is please provide the observational evidence. Tides are simply different accelerating vectors.
And who says that gravity propagates with the speed of light? The late astronomer, Tom van Flandern, head at the Naval Observatory, spent some very interesting calculations on the possible speed of gravity, based on the requirement of orbital stability. I can't recall the exact value of the lower limit he obtained, but it was far beyond the speed of light. Not all forces travel at the speed of light. The nuclear strong force is mediated by subnuclear particles.
Gravitational fields propagate at the speed of light, that has been confirmed by gravitational waves from rotating black holes arriving at the same time as light waves. (LIGO)
Vectors within the gravitational field are instantaneous. Gravity unlike the strong, weak or EM forces is not mediated by gauge bosons. Watch this. https://youtube.com/shorts/7u-CClX9Bl0?si=WB9oh994deYWZU67
The claim is that, by reference only to the INTERIOR of the elevator car, one can find no differences between gravity acceleration and inertial frame acceleration.
No, the claim is for the entire elevator.
By having accelerometers in all interior corners of the elevator car, it will be possible to detect acceleration vectors toward the center of the gravitational source (and thus its distance and location), and also the first-order (tidal) differences in acceleration magnitude.
It would be exactly the same for the entire elevator being accelerated by a rocket. The accelerometer's vectors would point to the center of thrust.
Interestingly, an accelerometer (like a plumb bob) orbiting around the Sun in space (not near a planet) will point to the instantaneous center of the Sun 8 minutes ahead of its visual center if it is in an earth range orbital position.
That instantaneous positioning is why planets don't spiral into the Sun and objects are able to stay in orbit. If Gravity was a force there would always be a speed of light lag making orbitals impossible.
I think this is the heart of our disagreement.
The Correspondence Principle (which Einstein claimed to identify accelerating frames of reference to gravity) can be falsified.
You also claim to be able to falsify Einsteins elevator thought experiment.
Here is the claim. Someone accelerating through space at 9.8 m/s^2 weighs the same (by stepping on a scale) as someone standing on the earth.
Einsteins claim is demonstrably and experimentally true. Do you really think you can falsify it? This I have to see.
In Einstein’s theory of general relativity, gravity is not a force acting at a distance, as Newton proposed, but rather a result of the geometry of spacetime itself. Massive objects, such as planets or stars, distort the four-dimensional fabric of spacetime, creating curvature. Objects moving nearby follow the natural paths dictated by this curvature, known as geodesics, which appear to us as gravitational attraction Wikipedia
It is rather stunning that your education neglected this fundamental fact that Gravity is not a Force.
Particle vs. Wave: False issue. Go to the literature. When the wavelength is arguably shorter than the thing under discussion, it makes sense to call it a "particle." When the wave nature is significant for the phenomena under consideration, then it makes sense to call it a wave.
The only difference we have on the definition of a wave or 'particle' is the wavelength. Wavelength refers to waves. . .
Gravity still has non-zero spacial derivatives of its force. Forces cause accelerations. They can arise from different physics: springs, electromagnetism, gravity, dynamic pressure, etc.
Again Gravity is not a force, it is the curvature of SpaceTime.
The Elevator Car: I should have omitted the clock. It wasn't necessary. And you apparently do not know that gravity produces tidal forces that can be detected by accelerometers. An accelerating reference frame does not produce these forces. The Correspondence Principle fails. On which relativity rests.
Gravity is an accelerating reference frame, you are being accelerated at 9.8 m/s^2. And no you shouldn't have omitted the clock because time slows down in an accelerating reference frame.
The Correspondence Principle by Neils Bohr was his attempt to reconcile Quantum and Classical Newtonian theories. Relativity does not rest on the Correspondence Principle and the Correspondence Principle doesn't apply to the theory of Relativity at all.
You don't deny that time is NOT a continuum. It simply isn't. There is no "past" that we can return to, as though walking down a path. Or a future that we can get "ahead" to, by also walking down a path. Can you explain why the things you want to distract to are relevant to the continuum issue?
Sure SpaceTime is continuous, however it is Relative. We can see billions of years back in time and we can stop time if we travel at the speed of light or enter a black holes event horizon. Furthermore in quantum mechanics time and distance aren't really part of the equations, that is partly why they haven't been reconciled with Relativity (that and renormalization, spooky action at a distance, etc).
I was only pointing out that I was educated in this area. My responses were factual, not authorial. When you want to make education a cross to bear, that is indeed ad hominem. It seems to me that you are not formally educated in this area. You are not familiar with the Correspondence Principle, or its importance to the theory of relativity.
Like I said above, Bohr's Correspondence Principle applies to classical Newtonian physics, not the theory of Relativity.
I think this is the heart of our misunderstanding, you are approaching this from a quantum/Newtonian direction while I am coming from a Relativity/Quantum direction.
You really shouldn't focus on Newtonian physics for this discussion.
And again, I can mathematically describe everything as a wave. Maxwell, Schrödinger equations are wave equations. Waves of what you ask? Waves of nothing : )
Particles are not "waves of nothing." They have structure and locality, and involve 3 forces more than just the electromagnetic force.
I think we are talking past each other. What is your precise definition of a particle?
gravity has non-zero spatial derivatives of its force
Gravity isn't a force, it is the curvature of SpaceTime. You need to read up on the Theory of Relativity.
An observer in the classical windowless elevator can tell the difference by using 8 accelerometers at the corners of the elevator and a clock.
Not true, again you need a refresher course on Relativity. Time Slows in a gravity well.
There is also the fact that time is not a continuum (there is no time travel other than perpetuation into the future).
Time is relative. Time is stopped in a blackhole. Also how do you explain the quantum eraser or the sum of many paths theory?
Very clever to use appeal to authority to cloak an argument ad hominem. I have not appealed anywhere to "authority," just to facts.
You are the one claiming to be an authority (engineer, education, experience with lasers) and it isn't an ad hominem attack pointing out your fallacy.
They have momentum.
Yes waves have momentum.
And all particles have deBroglie wavelengths, therefore frequencies.
Notice the term you used "Wavelengths"?, everything is a wave of nothing.
Spacetime is not an ether,
I don't know why you are hung up on the ether concept? Einstein replaced that fallacy with SpaceTime.
I have taken quite a bit of modern physics in my engineering education, so it is not helpful to think I am unfamiliar with the subject.
Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy.
The inherent difference between our opinions is that you are coming from the Quantum direction, while I am coming from Einstein's classical position and there has been no formal reconciliation.
Look at the big picture. Trump is taking control of the world's energy supply arbitrage away from the City of London. Trump is taking control of the maritime choke points and trade routes. All oil supplies are going to be priced in dollars.
All of this is to make the coming Stablecoin the world's currency which is backed by the US energy dollar. He is turning our National debt into an asset. (and eliminating the deficit by cutting out the fraud)
A photon is a particle, but I suppose that is lost on you.
You are simply defining a photon as a particle with its energy proportional to its frequency. "Particles" don't have a frequency. Waves have both energy and frequency. Photons can be completely mathematically described as Waves.
Particles, mass and spin. There are no particles. . . Everything is waves of nothing.
About the ether, I think Einstein got it right with SpaceTime.
Even the quantum bros have switched to Fields, nobody is arguing the duality anymore.
You are talking about gauge bosons, in other words the exchange of virtual particles. Beneath that conceptualization is Waves of Nothing. The exchange of virtual particles works via waves. Think of blowing up a balloon (a wave) and then popping it, leaving the deflated balloon somewhere.
There is a frequency and phase change from electrons to protons and neutrons, and again another frequency and phase change down to quarks, which are determined by their spin. Spin is mass.
It is all the same Waves of Nothing all the way down.
If Pratt wins it will be easy to determine if he is a good guy or not by his actions.
Unlike the typical infiltrators like Tucker, Candice or Fuentes who just talk, Pratt will have to act. The easiest thing for Pratt to do is call in the National guard with Trump's assistance. Then it doesn't matter if he is deeply tied to the Control System.
Think about it for a second. Trump pushes drill baby drill, then Trump takes control of Venezuela's oil, then Trump starts a war with Iran that takes 20% of the world's supply of oil off the market. (And Trump takes control of all the world's maritime chokepoints)
All of a sudden the America's (Trump) become the world's supplier of oil. $100 oil is extremely profitable for the US economy as a whole.
The US (Trump) now controls the price, shipping and production of most of the world's oil. Not the City of London, not OPEC, Trump controls the energy supply for the world.
From Tariffs, to Oil, this is strategic planning. Add in the Clarity Act and Stable coins and the US takes back control of the Dollar. The $40T debt becomes a non issue, or rather it becomes the backbone of Stable coins.....
I don't see how this is a 'problem' - it almost sounds as if you're saying actually, "its better to take the path of destroying, because its easier...."
That isn't what I am implying. There is an old adage "bad money drives out good." (Gresham's Law) That is how they are replacing us, with undesirables.
Creating is all well and good if you can keep it.
But the way to build something great is not to chop people's heads off, or do the equivalent, or destroy their lives. It's to focus on creation, not destruction.
The problem with that philosophy is that it is much easier to destroy than it is to create. A single match can destroy a lifetime of creation.
People who threaten destruction must be taken out. Our enemies understand this very well.
Dan wrote the book on Russiagate. His job was to guide the investigation and connect the dots from inside the beast.
There is clearly a grand jury in Southern Florida investigating RussiaGate. I think the indictments are clearly timed to take place at the same time the election fraud evidence is exposed when Trump announces a national emergency to implement the SAVE Act via the military, just before the midterm elections.
Having watched and participated in the rise and fall of many sites, you aren't wrong.
My interactions with Grok and ChatGPT have been hit or miss. Sometimes I am shocked at how good the insight is and other times, it is not even wrong. Luckily I am experienced enough know the difference.
It is kind of scary thinking that LLM's are becoming the font of knowledge.
Just spit balling it here, but consider this.
We know that cancer needs either glucose or glutamine for fuel. Our diet can't stop the supply of glutamine to feed the cancer, but there are glutamine inhibitors like ivermectin, quinine, etc. That can starve the cancer of glutamine.
It seems that parasites exclusively use glutamine for fuel and Ivermectin disrupts that metabolic pathway.
We already know that going on a carnivore (no carbs) diet with Ivermectin stops cancer growth, while feeding our healthy cells with ketones and lipids.
Cancer survivor myself.
What it looked like you missed was the elimination of carbs.
Cancer feeds exclusively off of carbohydrates and Glutamine.
Going Carnivore drastically reduces the supply of carbs and increases healthy cells supply of ketones and lipids, which is the preferred source of energy for mitochondria.
Glutamine on the other hand can't be reduced by diet, instead glutamine blockers or inhibitors (like Ivermectin and Fenbendozole) are necessary.
Fasting and exercise induces autaphagy which promotes ketone production while at the same time decreasing carbs and glutamines. Fasting is an important part of starving the cancer and healing your body.
Check out Thomas Seyfrieds research.
Also fasting is very easy after being on the carnivore diet for a while.
Tucker and the rest of the influencers (Candice, Fuentes, Alex, Meghan, Bannon, etc.) took a calculated gamble that Trump was going to fail starting with Epstein, Venezuela and especially when Trump took on Iran.
Their plan was to position themselves as the leaders as the Republican party rebuilt itself after Trumps immolation. Tucker probably planned to run for President.