Gravity Propulsion Drive

[AlphaNumeric]

You did it again. You avoid discussing the medium.

I explained why your question is flawed, why you ask leading questions based on naive fallacies, and you have failed to respond. I also explained why your lengthy claims about physics was false. Why do you get to wax lyrical about the supposed behaviour of physics and physicists but I'm not allowed to respond? I'm a physicist, you've made claims about people like me. I'm responding to them. My responses were entirely appropriate. You just don't want to hear them.

You throw out lies and you can't accept to have them exposed. I bet you make your parents proud.

 

[Mazulu]

To give you an analogy about the aether medium, consider this. You need a light bulb to get light. When energy passes through the bulb,the bulb emits light. If there is no bulb, there is no light and no energy is transmitted. The light bulb represents the aether. The physics community maintains that they put in so much wattage and get so much light, but they don't believe in the existence of the light-bulb (the aether).

 

[Mazulu]

I explained why your question is flawed, why you ask leading questions based on naive fallacies, and you have failed to respond. I also explained why your lengthy claims about physics was false. Why do you get to wax lyrical about the supposed behaviour of physics and physicists but I'm not allowed to respond? I'm a physicist, you've made claims about people like me. I'm responding to them. My responses were entirely appropriate. You just don't want to hear them.

You throw out lies and you can't accept to have them exposed. I bet you make your parents proud.

Again you avoid talking about the aether medium. Tell me about how the tooth fairy makes Maxwell's equations work. Tell me about how the flying spaghetti monster makes gravity work. Space-time geometry and mathematical models are just ideas, just concepts. They don't implement anything. What transmits gravity through space? What are the characteristics of the medium that the space-time continuum is supposed to represent?

Now go on and weave and dodge these questions. Go on and attack the strawman, Jesus, the Spaghetti monster, and anything that distracts away from what's important: the support system of light.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

To give you an analogy about the aether medium, consider this. You need a light bulb to get light. When energy passes through the bulb,the bulb emits light. If there is no bulb, there is no light and no energy is transmitted. The light bulb represents the aether. The physics community maintains that they put in so much wattage and get so much light, but they don't believe in the existence of the light-bulb (the aether).

Is there some reason you adamantly refuse to understand my comments about how you are doing nothing more than making baseless assertions? I know religious people are used to just accepting things without basis but in science you need to provide reason and evidence, logic and derivation.

If you can do nothing but repeat things you cannot justify then you're wasting everyone's time.

Again you avoid talking about the aether medium.

And again you fail to grasp what I've said. You haven't provided any evidence for an aether. You can't provide experimental data, you can't provide an aether model which actually reflects reality. Why should I talk about some concept you like, when you offer nothing to think it's worth talking about?

If I asked you "Why won't you talk about the Invisible Pink Unicorn!" or "Why won't you talk about how gravity is invisible fairies pushing everything around!" you'd say "Why should I think either of those two things are true?". You have provided me with no more reason to discuss invisible fairies being responsible for gravity than you have for an aether explaining light.

I'll talk about the aether medium when you can provide an argument or evidence for it which isn't just a poorly disguised logical fallacy.

Tell me about how the tooth fairy makes Maxwell's equations work. Tell me about how the flying spaghetti monster makes gravity work.

I can provide just as much 'evidence' and discussion on those two ideas as you can for the aether. And that's precisely why there's no reason for us to discuss the aether, until you can provide something more.

Space-time geometry and mathematical models are just ideas, just concepts. They don't implement anything.

Where did I say otherwise? Have you moved on from lying about physicists to making strawmen now?

What transmits gravity through space? What are the characteristics of the medium that the space-time continuum is supposed to represent?

You obviously failed to grasp what I said previously. The inability for someone to answer those questions doesn't elevate your willingness to just fabric things without justification. You're the one claiming an aether exists, the onus is on you to provide evidence. Asking me what my answers to those questions are is irrelevant, you're the one making the claims here. Besides, if I did give you the answers to those questions you'd dismiss them for a number of reasons. First and foremost they'd make reference to concepts beyond your understanding and secondly you're going to auto-dismiss anything which doesn't align with your preconceptions (such behaviour being all the more hypocritical given what you've said you think physicists behave like).

You've been avoiding all the questions I ask you. For example, you said it's a pretty reasonable thing to say all things which exist had a cause which made them exist. Does god exist? If so then by your claim something created him. If he doesn't exist then you've also contradicted yourself. If he created himself then you've contradicted yourself in a different way. Your own believes contradict a statement you've made and consider to be a good point of 'common sense'.

Go on and attack the strawman, Jesus, the Spaghetti monster, and anything that distracts away from what's important: the support system of light.

I was attacking your strawman, your misrepresentation of scientists and education. Do you honestly think you're going to be able to just lie, flat out lie, about scientists and no one call you on it? If you don't like how I keep passing comment on that, stop lying about scientists. And as for Jesus etc, you're the one who said "God told me!". If you had a proper rational argument and actual evidence you could have never mentioned your god and we'd never have talked about it. Instead you brought it up and now you don't want to have such laughable positions you took to be dwelled upon.

Can you provide any actual evidence for an aether? Can you provide a single working model which uses aether of any observed phenomenon? Can you admit you were misrepresenting science and education and the intents of scientists? If you actually answered these questions properly we could discuss your claims. Instead you choose to lie about scientists and assert things about your god.

This thread is your opportunity to convince someone like myself, someone who knows a fair amount of mathematical physics and does research, that your claims are worth looking at. After all, if you think you're really onto something then at some point you'll want to bring your work to the attention of the research community. Consider me your first opportunity. If you can't answer my questions then you'll never get anywhere because I'm asking some pretty simple questions about your claims. If you can't convince me, someone you think has poor maths and physics knowledge, you're never going to convince anyone else in the research community.

And remember, other people can see our posts. Someone else reading the thread will see how you can't answer direct questions about your claims, how you misrepresent scientists and education, how you complain people are off topic when you're the one who initiated the irrelevant line of discussion.

You complain that I have failed to show much physics and maths understanding. You've shown that you're happy to post mathematics you picked up and butchered from elsewhere, without understanding. You obviously haven't done a course in quantum mechanics yet you tell people like myself how it is done. This is not the path to getting people to listen to you, it's the path to being labelled a dishonest hack with delusions of grandeur (why would a god pick you?).

 

[Mazulu]

Is there some reason you adamantly refuse to understand my comments about how you are doing nothing more than making baseless assertions? I know religious people are used to just accepting things without basis but in science you need to provide reason and evidence, logic and derivation.

If you can do nothing but repeat things you cannot justify then you're wasting everyone's time. And again you fail to grasp what I've said. You haven't provided any evidence for an aether. You can't provide experimental data, you can't provide an aether model which actually reflects reality. Why should I talk about some concept you like, when you offer nothing to think it's worth talking about?

If I asked you "Why won't you talk about the Invisible Pink Unicorn!" or "Why won't you talk about how gravity is invisible fairies pushing everything around!" you'd say "Why should I think either of those two things are true?". You have provided me with no more reason to discuss invisible fairies being responsible for gravity than you have for an aether explaining light.

I'll talk about the aether medium when you can provide an argument or evidence for it which isn't just a poorly disguised logical fallacy.

I can provide just as much 'evidence' and discussion on those two ideas as you can for the aether. And that's precisely why there's no reason for us to discuss the aether, until you can provide something more.

Where did I say otherwise? Have you moved on from lying about physicists to making strawmen now?

You obviously failed to grasp what I said previously. The inability for someone to answer those questions doesn't elevate your willingness to just fabric things without justification. You're the one claiming an aether exists, the onus is on you to provide evidence. Asking me what my answers to those questions are is irrelevant, you're the one making the claims here. Besides, if I did give you the answers to those questions you'd dismiss them for a number of reasons. First and foremost they'd make reference to concepts beyond your understanding and secondly you're going to auto-dismiss anything which doesn't align with your preconceptions (such behaviour being all the more hypocritical given what you've said you think physicists behave like).

You've been avoiding all the questions I ask you. For example, you said it's a pretty reasonable thing to say all things which exist had a cause which made them exist. Does god exist? If so then by your claim something created him. If he doesn't exist then you've also contradicted yourself. If he created himself then you've contradicted yourself in a different way. Your own believes contradict a statement you've made and consider to be a good point of 'common sense'.

I was attacking your strawman, your misrepresentation of scientists and education. Do you honestly think you're going to be able to just lie, flat out lie, about scientists and no one call you on it? If you don't like how I keep passing comment on that, stop lying about scientists. And as for Jesus etc, you're the one who said "God told me!". If you had a proper rational argument and actual evidence you could have never mentioned your god and we'd never have talked about it. Instead you brought it up and now you don't want to have such laughable positions you took to be dwelled upon.

Can you provide any actual evidence for an aether? Can you provide a single working model which uses aether of any observed phenomenon? Can you admit you were misrepresenting science and education and the intents of scientists? If you actually answered these questions properly we could discuss your claims. Instead you choose to lie about scientists and assert things about your god.

This thread is your opportunity to convince someone like myself, someone who knows a fair amount of mathematical physics and does research, that your claims are worth looking at. After all, if you think you're really onto something then at some point you'll want to bring your work to the attention of the research community. Consider me your first opportunity. If you can't answer my questions then you'll never get anywhere because I'm asking some pretty simple questions about your claims. If you can't convince me, someone you think has poor maths and physics knowledge, you're never going to convince anyone else in the research community.

And remember, other people can see our posts. Someone else reading the thread will see how you can't answer direct questions about your claims, how you misrepresent scientists and education, how you complain people are off topic when you're the one who initiated the irrelevant line of discussion.

You complain that I have failed to show much physics and maths understanding. You've shown that you're happy to post mathematics you picked up and butchered from elsewhere, without understanding. You obviously haven't done a course in quantum mechanics yet you tell people like myself how it is done. This is not the path to getting people to listen to you, it's the path to being labelled a dishonest hack with delusions of grandeur (why would a god pick you?).

Then please allow me to justify my claim that an aether medium exists, and argue logically why I think it has certain properties.

When we look at the Galilean transformation from one reference frame to another, everything is measured with respect to an absolute reference frame and a single absolute clock - one absolute clock, one absolute standard for distance. What could be easier? If nature worked this way, then the progression of time and the standard for distance would all be tied to the absolute reference frame. This would prevent length and time measurements from drifting away from a universal standard. If there was no absolute reference frame, no aether medium, then how could the duration of one second and the distance of one meter be expected to be the same on earth as it is in other solar systems and galaxies? In the absence of an absolute reference frame, there would be no universal calibration. Over billions of years, some clocks would run fast and other clocks would run slow, all over the universe.

But Michelson & Morley disproved the existence of an absolute reference frame using an interferometer. Light travels the same velocity north-south as it does east-west. So Michelson & Morley proved that distance and time cannot be universally calibrated because there is no universal standard to refer to. Or is there?

If there was no universal standard of calibration for distance/time, then it wouldn't be possible to write equations that predict geodesics. Time and distance measurements, for entire regions of space, could drift randomly. The earth has remained in orbit around the sun for billions of years. If distance and time were not regularly calibrated, then earth's orbit would not be stable. The earth would have fallen into the sun or drifted into outer space long ago. Perfect elliptical orbits look easy to draw, but they require absolute precision, and constant calibration. In effect, space and time have to be calibrated everywhere in the universe, or else the universe will become quite unpredictable.

So where is this universal calibrator of space and time? M&M disproved the absolute reference frame. Special relativity tells us that the speed of light is invariant for all reference frames. Cosmologists have observed this to be true. So how many things travel at the speed of light that could be used for calibration? Gravitons have never been observed. I heard that quarks move at the speed of light, but how would the calibrate? And how would they calibrate beyond the nucleons. What about light (gamma rays, x-rays, microwaves, radio waves, visible light, etc.)? Well, it is true that light (electromagnetic emissions of photons) obey the equation $$c = \lambda f$$. If the speed of light is invariant, and light has wavelength (distance) and frequency (time) built into them, then distance and time must be calibrated by light! We don't need an aether, light can calibrate distance and time. So all of the electromagnetic radiation in each reference frame must calibrate distance and time. Since the speed of light is invariant between reference frames, then the wavelength & frequency of light, every wave of light, can calibrate between reference frames. Every wave cycle automatically has a distance * frequency = a universal velocity of light. This is why Einstein was able to calculate length contraction and time dilation between two reference frames, because wavelength * frequency equals the universal constant, c, and electromagnetic radiation permits the calibration process between relativistically moving objects. So what happens if there is light between object A moving relativistically with respect to object B (moving slowly)? What if both objects are black and very near absolute zero? Will time dilation still occur? Time dilation itself is a very highly calibrated process.

I'll continue my argument later.

 

[Mazulu]

So waves of electromagnetic energy do have a wavelength and a period which serve as a means to calibrate distance and time everywhere in the universe, but there are problems. Curvature of space-time puts photons of light into a geodesic while curvature itself is known to be a very predictable; in other words, photons go where gravity tells them to go. There is an equation for gravitational time dilation, $$t_0 = t_f sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}}$$. This relationship between proper time and coordinate time is predictable, which means that it's calibrated. Failure to calibrate results in sloppiness; gravity equations are based on observation of nature. Nature is not sloppy, nature is very fine tuned. Nature is calibrated, but not with photons.

Distance and time are defined with photons. One second is defined by the International Bureau of
Weights and Measures (BIMP) the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to
the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom [3]. In
other words, the frequency of a photon that transitions between two energy levels in a Cesium atom.
The same is true for distance. One meter is defined by BIMP as the distance light travels in
18299,792,49: of a second.

We can use the wave nature of light to calibrate time (atomic clocks) and distance. But light only travels at the speed of light. The Earth is six light minutes from the sun. Other planets are even further away. In order for photons to calibrate across distances of several light minutes up to two light years, they would have to be holding hands. Last I checked, photons don't connect together like that.

What we're left with is a concept and mathematical framework for a space-time continuum, but no known way to calibrate it. Light can be used for calibration, but it's localized. Light cannot extend from the sun to the 8 planets (and Pluto). There is clearly something missing, something that can calibrate without being visible. If there was something that could calibrate like waves do, waves of the form $$\lambda f = c$$, extend from the sun to the planets, from the planets to their moon (so that space-time curvature and gravity could appear to be orderly), and extend between any two particles that might be moving relativistically with respect to one another (since time dilation is mathematically predictable and precise), then it could be the missing calibrator. When energy is released into this missing calibrator. emissions of light appear.

I submit to you that this missing calibrator is aether medium. It is made out of standing waves within each inertial reference frame. Instead of a particle in a box of infinite potential energy well, they are electromagnetic standing waves. The distance L is the size of the universe. Accelerating reference frames would have to length and frequency shift (so as to reproduce gravitational time dilation, curvature of space-time, etc.).

 

[AlexG]

Crankdom hath no remedy.

 

[Mazulu]

Crankdom hath no remedy.

Alexg,
How does the space-time continuum calibrate distance and time? There is no absolute reference frame, no absolute clock, to refer to. Yet time dilation, length contraction and space-time curvature are very organized processes. How does nature calibrate itself so that our physics formulas are correct? How does nature remain highly consistent without calibrating distance and time?

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Alexg,
How does the space-time continuum calibrate distance and time? There is no absolute reference frame, no absolute clock, to refer to. Yet time dilation, length contraction and space-time curvature are very organized processes. How does nature calibrate itself so that our physics formulas are correct? How does nature remain highly consistent without calibrating distance and time?

That's the big question, which in part has already been answered by science, demonstrating that matter is independent, except for little anomolies that keep thowing a spanner into the works.
I cannot agree that light is propogated in a medium that is the same as itself, but I agree about a medium for matter/light with different properties that only show up in matter through the anomolies. In fact the anomolies that some try to avoid, like TEW theory, are the clues to the workings of the medium. By the way I do not strickly see it as a medium.
I was wondering if you could say in no more than fifty words how a gravity propulsion device might work and what it may look like.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You're another one who blithers on about trivial nonsense.

I don't think many people would agree that responding to attacks on education is being trivial. You went on quite a rant, attacking the very foundations which you would need to master in order to even begin to address the subject matter you opened here.

You won't discuss: how is light implemented?

What does that even mean? What does "implement" have to do with nature? Light is propagated, if that's you're meaning, by photons, in their configuration as electromagnetic waves. But what are you driving at?

How are virtual photons implemented by the medium?

Again "implemented" makes no sense to me. Virtual particles are what they are. Their ephemeral nature would not seem to have any particular significance to the question of "medium" which I will take to mean propagation through the vacuum. They appear to be more directly related to the mechanism by which all matter is perpetuated through partice-antiparticle interactions. I'm not at all sure what you're driving at.

You can't even conceive that a medium exists.

I don't think you have a clue about what I conceive of. Light traveling though glass, or an electric current in a copper wire, provides a basis for analyzing transport through a medium. Propagation through space is necessarily different than transport through a medium.

It is common sense that if you understand how a system works, you can tinker with it.

Which is how wireless communications, among many other things, work. There's a huge difference between fabricating a transmitter to send a given spectral emission than emitting a signal to fabricate an element of the system. That's where your train jumps the tracks.

But you don't understand how light is implemented by the medium.

I admit that I don't have a clue what you mean by "implement" since that's not a meaningful word, much less a technical one. This goes back to education. One of the benefits of an education is that it encourages agreement on a common language for discussing abstractions that don't have common expressions to describe them. It makes discussions like this converge faster to meaningful language. But I would say that I understand EM wave propagation well enough for the purposes of this discussion.

Look, I've got useful stuff to do.

If you say so. The most useful things (of this kind) are usually the ones with a basis on science. If anything, it seems you've resolved to reject it. That sounds like spinning your wheels, quite the opposite of being useful.

 

[Aqueous Id]

How does the space-time continuum calibrate distance and time?

Speaking of blithering....

 

[Mazulu]

That's the big question, which in part has already been answered by science, demonstrating that matter is independent, except for little anomolies that keep thowing a spanner into the works.
I cannot agree that light is propogated in a medium that is the same as itself, but I agree about a medium for matter/light with different properties that only show up in matter through the anomolies. In fact the anomolies that some try to avoid, like TEW theory, are the clues to the workings of the medium. By the way I do not strickly see it as a medium.
I was wondering if you could say in no more than fifty words how a gravity propulsion device might work and what it may look like.

The top and bottom of your spaceship would be covered with sophisticated optical devices that might look like this. They would be driven by fast and powerful mainframes. It would work by dividing the frequency spectrum from 400 to 800THz into 64 frequency steps. A light emitting diode, one for each frequency would be fabricated on a GaAlAs wafer, in groups of 8x8.

I'm a little over 50 words.:shrug:

 

[Mazulu]

In physics, spacetime (or space-time, space time, space-time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. From a Euclidean space perspective, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

I just wanted to make this point clear: the space-time continuum is a mathematical model that describes gravity. Space-time is a set of mathematics that has been around for about a hundred years. It's easy to confuse the model with the real thing. It's easy to lose oneself in the mathematics and forget there is a real physical universe out there. We don't exist within the space-time continuum anymore than you or I live on a chalkboard.

The mathematics of an ellipse $$\frac{x^2}{a^2}+\frac{y^2}{b^2}=1$$ is easy to write down. Cosmologists observe that the planetary orbits around the sun are ellipses. A young physicist might write down the equation for a planetary orbit, but never give it a second thought that nature has to make it happen physically. Who needs an aether medium when nature uses mathematics, right? Wrong! Cosmologists don't see plus signs and proofs floating around in space. A mathematician would never have to calibrate his manifold. But nature doesn't use manifolds. Nature has to physically implement everything from light to gravity.

Again "implemented" makes no sense to me. Virtual particles are what they are. Their ephemeral nature would not seem to have any particular significance to the question of "medium" which I will take to mean propagation through the vacuum. They appear to be more directly related to the mechanism by which all matter is perpetuated through partice-antiparticle interactions. I'm not at all sure what you're driving at.

There are physicists who implement the laws of physics with a computer model. They program the code, line by line, so that the RAM, and the processor and the registers can implement the model. Nature does a lot more than that to keep the planet earth in its elliptical orbit.

For those who cannot tell the difference between a model and the physical universe, I would encourage you to go outside and climb a tree, play in the rain, roll around in the mud, lift a heavy rock so that you know what gravity really does, watch a wild animal up close, stub your toe (to prove that you exist), pull daisies, fall in love, and mow the lawn.

 

[Mazulu]

Virtual photons are the carriers of electromagnetism. They are everywhere in the universe. So the idea that space is completely empty is false. If virtual photons exist everywhere in space, then that alone constitutes a medium.

In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space. The energy and momentum of a virtual particle are uncertain according to the uncertainty principle. The degree of uncertainty of each is inversely proportional to time duration (for energy) or to position span (for momentum).

Virtual photons exist everywhere in nature. They only exist briefly. It is reasonable to conclude that if you add more energy, virtual photons will become real photons. The luminiferous aether is called the light bearing medium. If space is filled with virtual photons, and virtual photons will become real photons when energy is added, then virtual photons are the light bearing medium. Therefore, the luminiferous aether exists.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

I'm a little over 50 words.:shrug:

Sorry, make it 150?

 

[Mazulu]

Sorry, make it 150?

While nature makes available all inertial reference frames, complete with full electromagnetic bandwidth and virtual photons/particles (force carriers); they really don't exist in any measurable way if there are no particles in them.

Accelerating frames can exist even when there are no particles in them. The reason for generating a sawtooth wave of frequency versus time, with a high slope, is because we want to energize/activate the accelerating frame, and get the acceleration field of this frame.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

While nature makes available all inertial reference frames, complete with full electromagnetic bandwidth and virtual photons/particles (force carriers); they really don't exist in any measurable way if there are no particles in them.

Accelerating frames can exist even when there are no particles in them. The reason for generating a sawtooth wave of frequency versus time, with a high slope, is because we want to energize/activate the accelerating frame, and get the acceleration field of this frame.

Atoms operate with a given amount of energy with every oscillation, when you assist that process without stimulating the atom, the atom will jump into the next harmonic mode of operation, giving more time between each oscillation, and an extended field in space. This mimics an increase in mass, and the object will not relate normally to surrounding matter. The consequences may defy the gravitational effect of the earth and make it super frictionless, but it is not an antigravity machine. Gravity is simply a gradient of energy that attracts ordinary particles in one direction, down to earth. The dream of true antigravity is sci fi.
Your model needs to create a reaction of energy through a contrast of lower energy, and not to accelerate or increase what nature already has, which it tends to resist quite strongly.

 

[Mazulu]

Atoms operate with a given amount of energy with every oscillation, when you assist that process without stimulating the atom, the atom will jump into the next harmonic mode of operation, giving more time between each oscillation, and an extended field in space. This mimics an increase in mass, and the object will not relate normally to surrounding matter. The consequences may defy the gravitational effect of the earth and make it super frictionless, but it is not an antigravity machine. Gravity is simply a gradient of energy that attracts ordinary particles in one direction, down to earth. The dream of true antigravity is sci fi.
Your model needs to create a reaction of energy through a contrast of lower energy, and not to accelerate or increase what nature already has, which it tends to resist quite strongly.

You believe that anti-gravity is science fiction because the physics community has failed you. They have failed you by denying the existence of the aether medium. They will continue to deny it's existence. Eventually, they will come to realize that: the quantum vacuum is made out of aether waves of the E&M spectrum.

Then, they will see that time dilation is what happens when all of the aether waves of the EM spectrum (for the reference frame) frequency shift.

Then, they will say: "Hey! What will happen if I synthesize a frequency shift?" Some day, they will perform the experiment. Then, they will stumble upon the gravity drive.

 

[Mazulu]

When a photon travels along the radii of a black hole, it frequency shifts. It blue shifts if it's falling in, and redshifts if it's climbing out of the gravity well.
Simultaneously, gravitational time dilation causes time to slow down along the radii of a black hole, until you reach the event horizon where time gets so slow that some people think it stops (maybe it does stop).

Then, there is the equivalence principle which says that gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent. They means that gravitational acceleration and accelerating reference frames are equivalent. Equivalent could mean it's the same mechanism. If aether medium waves are really what implement the properties of empty space (c,permitivity, permeability, measurements of distance, flow of time), then aether medium waves implement the properties of inertial frames and accelerating frames.

Gravity is an accelerating frame. Along the radii of a gravity well, light (which is a wave) will frequency shift. It follows that since aether medium waves are also waves, then aether medium waves will also frequency shift. In fact, the whole frequency bandwidth will frequency shift. Since aether medium waves are what create the properties of the reference frame, and of empty space, then frequency shift is therefore what causes the acceleration field of an accelerating frame.

Since we have the ability to create electromagnetic frequency shift (relatively inexpensively), it follows that we should perform frequency shift experiments. We want to see if we can generate frequency shifts that will reproduce an acceleration field.

This is how you begin gravity propulsion generator research.

 

[arfa brane]

Then, there is the equivalence principle which says that gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent. They means that gravitational acceleration and accelerating reference frames are equivalent. Equivalent could mean it's the same mechanism.

Equivalent doesn't mean "the same mechanism" in general.
Gravitational and inertial acceleration are equivalent, but in the first case acceleration is due to a gravitating mass, in the second case can be a lot of things including gravity.

Since we have the ability to create electromagnetic frequency shift (relatively inexpensively), it follows that we should perform frequency shift experiments. We want to see if we can generate frequency shifts that will reproduce an acceleration field.

But emitting radiation at different frequencies does not shift the frequency of the radiation. In free space each photon will have the same frequency it had when it was emitted. You're saying a frequency spectrum (a mixture of different frequencies) is a frequency shift. It isn't.

To change a frequency you need to do something else than emit another frequency, because all you have then is two frequencies. It doesn't matter if the two are emitted at different times or the same time. This is especially true of EM radiation because photons have no effect on each other.