Agreed. My question was about inertia and relative motion, and how classsical inertia sorts out between them in GR.
Photon?
- Thread starter Fredrik
- Start date
It is not entirely incorporated in GR. Einstein seems to have liked Mach's principle with reguard to inertia, but was not successful incorporating it into his field equations.
But, sinse inertia does play a role for anything with mass, the only obvious role that the relative motion of two objects would have on the inertia of each individually, is that depending on the total mass, there would come a point or distance between them, where the gravitational field would begin to dominate the interaction... It takes more force to lift an object off the ground than it does to push it....
For a couple years in and just after my college years I worked for a railroad. As part of my initial informal instruction a boxcar, weighing somewhere between 10 and 60 tons was set on a level part of the track. I was told to put my hand on one end and then just lean on it. I weighed in at just 150-160 lbs. at the time, still just leaning on the boxcar started it rolling on level track... Roller bearings! Needless to say, I could not pick it up. So less than I'd say maybe 30 lbs. of force could over come its resting inertia, where it would have required tens of tons, of force to overcome gravity, and lift it off of the ground.
The moral, gravitation deep in a gravity well is a far greater a force than the inertial resitance an object has to being moved, abscent an opposing force or other resistance.
Farsight:
Do you think that gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves are the same thing?
QuarkHead summed things up with this:
But I'm confused about why you think we need to redefine the metre and the second:
Look. There's an obvious error in the quote. Minkowski talks about "division of the field into electric and magnetic forces". That's not right, is it? A field and a force are not the same thing. So, Minkowski is using sloppy language here. Similarly, he is being sloppy when he talks about the "field of the electron itself". Clearly, from the context, he means the two fields that he explicitly mentions - the electric field and the magnetic field - though he mistakenly refers to "forces" instead of "fields".
You shouldn't place too much reliance on these wordy descriptions of what's going on. Ideally, you should look at the mathematics along with the words. However, I have been getting the distinct impression that you actually can't do the maths. To really understand physics, Farsight, you'll have to learn some maths. Words will only get you so far. You lack of understanding of the maths is probably the reason why you so often tie yourself in knots when you try to understand physics.
How much formal mathematical training have you had, if I may ask directly? And if, as I suspect, you've had little formal training, then what private study have you done?
You realise that the tensor is not a separate thing from E and B, don't you?
Personally, I can say that I've never heard any physicist talking about time "flowing through an optical clock". Or read anything like that in Einstein, for that matter.
You have not addressed the point that I made. (See the linked post)
Wrong. Empty space (or spacetime) is not a medium.
The "usual story" is not wrong, although we have to be careful about exactly what is causing what. Electric fields and magnetic fields create each other as they vary. Changing one causes the other to change. That leads to a self-propagating disturbance in both fields, which is an electromagnetic wave.
Show me the equations that support this claim.
Yes. An electromagnetic wave consists of electric and magnetic fields oscillating in phase.
It doesn't actually matter that much what words Einstein used to describe things. Words are always subject to interpretation. The mathematics tells the unequivocal story.
I don't know what you think the "electromagnetic field" is. It's not a mysterious entity that physicists aren't taught about. An electromagnetic field is just electric and magnetic fields. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think about. I'll need you to help me again. Why out-of-phase? Why does the phase matter? And what is doing the waving, exactly? That is, what do you mean when you say that "space waves"? What is space? It sounds like you think it's a medium.
Do you think that gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves are the same thing?
No it doesn't. Maxwell's equations themselves immediately imply exactly that kind of description of electromagnetic waves. I have a slight quibble with your saying that the electric wave creates the magnetic wave, though. It is the varying electric field that creates a magnetic field, and vice versa. The spatial and time variations in those fields are such as to form a propagating wave. This follows directly from Maxwell's equations.
It does tell me that. You seem to think that physicists don't know what an electromagnetic wave is, Farsight. This stuff is taught to first-year students. It's not a hidden mystery that you've discovered.
Fine. Then we agree that it's a fair description of how the speed of light varies in a gravitational field.
QuarkHead summed things up with this:
That's a very elegant summary of your point about the apparent variation in the speed of light, and a nice summary of Don Koks article, too, don't you think?QuarkHead said:
But I'm confused about why you think we need to redefine the metre and the second:
Surely you can see that it follows from your own argument that the requirement of sea level is superfluous. Agreed?Farsight said:
No. Light at the event horizon is still moving at c, measured locally. It is only stopped if you use the distant time coordinate - the one you use far outside the horizon where spacetime is approximately flat. This, too, follows from the Baez/Don Koks article you agree with.
You read too much into these century-old sources you refer to.
Look. There's an obvious error in the quote. Minkowski talks about "division of the field into electric and magnetic forces". That's not right, is it? A field and a force are not the same thing. So, Minkowski is using sloppy language here. Similarly, he is being sloppy when he talks about the "field of the electron itself". Clearly, from the context, he means the two fields that he explicitly mentions - the electric field and the magnetic field - though he mistakenly refers to "forces" instead of "fields".
You shouldn't place too much reliance on these wordy descriptions of what's going on. Ideally, you should look at the mathematics along with the words. However, I have been getting the distinct impression that you actually can't do the maths. To really understand physics, Farsight, you'll have to learn some maths. Words will only get you so far. You lack of understanding of the maths is probably the reason why you so often tie yourself in knots when you try to understand physics.
How much formal mathematical training have you had, if I may ask directly? And if, as I suspect, you've had little formal training, then what private study have you done?
What are the components of the tensor $$F_{\mu \nu}$$, Farsight?
You realise that the tensor is not a separate thing from E and B, don't you?
You seem to assume a lot about what is taught in university physics courses, especially at graduate level where general relativity is studied. Have you taken any such course yourself? If not, where do you get your information on what is and isn't taught?
Personally, I can say that I've never heard any physicist talking about time "flowing through an optical clock". Or read anything like that in Einstein, for that matter.
The speed of light is only spatially variable if you insist on keeping the same time variable as you shift in space, even as the spacetime curvature changes. It is important that you don't fall into the trap of believing that there is a universal or preferred time when you're talking about general relativity.
Last edited:
The following is not presented as fact, it is presented as a test of my understanding of what you said, and as such, is intended as a series of statements that are begging to be corrected.
If I define a locality, and call it a frame of reference, and if I invoke the geometry of spacetime, what I have is the curvature of spacetime being determined by the presence and influence of matter and energy on that location. Let us say that the matter and energy that act on the defined location determine the curvature present at that location in spacetime. The geometry of spacetime combines the local curvature and the instant (point in time).
Curvature at that location means that the next motion of an object at that locality is determined, and the object will make the prescribed move instantly as it follows the geodesic through space. The geodesic will be a curved path relative to a straight line from point A to point B. The curvature of the path is relative to the net directional influences exerted by the matter and energy causing the local curvature.
The instantaneous move of the object, and the relative motion of the matter and energy that established the curvature, given that they all are in motion, will rearrange their positions and therefore their influences, and the curvature is instantly self correcting, continually redefining the geodesic that the object will follow.
In Newtonian Physics, you can define an object in each instant by its mass, and you can define its motion by giving it an applied force and direction. The force associated with an object's motion is calculated by its mass times acceleration, and the velocity is its speed relative to another location, say its start point or its destination along the straight path of motion, i.e. its vector.
The difference between GR and Newton is the difference between Spacetime Geometry, and Euclidean Geometry.
Any corrections? ... because I want to discuss the nature of the matter and energy that cause the curvature that are quantified by the EFEs, once I get this part right.
It was difficult for me to follow your intent in the portion of your post I did not quote. That may be my own problem! However, I can say something directly about that portion I did quote, assuming it was what the earlier portion was intended to lead up to.
How you compare Newtonian Gravity and GR, is not a comparrison of geometries.
Newton was not describing gravity in terms of geometry, though geometry is certainly involved in describing the locations and interactions, of the components of the solar system he was concerned with. Newtonian gravity describes the force between two massive objects directly, as a direct interaction between the two. You could visualize this as a line of force. When more than two objects are involved you wind up with lines of force between each of the involved objects. All which could be depicted as straight lines.
In GR, Einstein discarded the Newtonian view and modeled gravitation as a 4D gravitational field, we call spacetime, where the motion of objects can be modeled, as consistent with the curvature associate with the complex contributions of all gravitationally significant objects contributing to the field.
To be clear it is possible to model Newtionian gravity using Minkowski spacetime geometry, which remains flat, such that the gravitational attraction between any objects could still be modeled as direct interactions between objects. The Newtonian view essentially amounts to the sun interacting in a straight line with each planet, and each planet, in a straight line, with every other planet. All independently interacting with each other. Though the final result involves all objects moving in curved paths, the force is direct. GR uses a curved spacetime geometry to model the curved paths directly.
In most cases it is far easier to calculate the Newtonian gravitational interaction between all significant objects and from that predict any individual object's path, such as orbit. While the GR approach, far more complex, but is more accurate when attempting to predict fine details, like how over time a planet's polar rotation and orientation changes, as well as effects of both angular and linear frame-dragging, which are abscent in the Newtonian context.
No, it is often hard to follow my intent. It was just to test my understanding, and not to lead up to the distinction between the geometries of spacetime vs Euclidean.
Thanks for clarifying all that for me. I think it can wait for me to start trying to understand the nature of the matter and energy that cause the curvature in the geometry of spacetime. I have trouble getting a sense for exactly what the inputs are to the equations, how many equations have to be solved for each move along the goedesic, etc. I thought if someone could read what I presented as statements of my understanding of the geometry of spacetime and geodesics, then when my understanding pans out, I might be in a position to understand the variables and inputs to the various equations. I'm not planning to apply the equations, just wondering about what they are quantifying about the energy and matter that cause the curvature at a place in spacetime.
Einstein's equation(s) describe the dynamics of gravitation, not what causes those dynamics. Granted there are some who in a modern interpretation of GR, equate curvature in the context of GR, as a real physical component and thus ascribe gravity itself to that curvature. That conceptualization of GR, does not from what little I can understand, of attempts to construct a model of quantum gravity (QG), seem to be reconcilable with QG. Which leads me to the assumption that something is missing from both approaches.
(Do not take this as a denial in any respect, of the predictive and descriptive success, of either GR or QM in general.)
I just don't believe that you will find the answers it apears you are seeking, in the geometry.
Ya know, quantum_wave, I had you down as a standard crank. Your present anxiety to learn proves me wrong
So what does this mean? Using no mathematics, I will say that every point on the spacetime 4-manifold is entitled to a tensor space, that is a set of tensors that obey the obvious rules of addition and scalar multiplication (these spaces are technically vector spaces, but let's not go there). There may be infinitely many tensors "living" at each point of our manifold.
A tensor field is, very roughly, a selection of just one of these tensors for each point of our spacetime manifold. But for a manifold of any sort to be useful in physics (and elsewhere, for that matter) we suppose that each point is entitled to at least 2 compatible coordinate systems. So multivariate calculus tells us exactly how to relate a single tensor at a single point using one coordinate system to the same tensor at the same point using a different coordinate system.
But calculus does not tell us how to relate an element of a tensor field at a point with an element defined at a different point - for that we need something called a "connection", which roughly says what it implies- it "connects" distinct points This is defined in terms of something called a metric tensor, which, by the same reasoning, is a tensor field - one metric tensor at each point. We need the metric so we know, extremely loosely speaking, the "distance" between the points we want to "connect"
And finally, the curvature tensor at each point - again a point-wise defined element of a tensor field - is defined in terms of the connection which is defined in terms of the metric tensor field, and you begin to see we do not have a simple model at all. For all that, you seem to be more-or-less on the right track
If you want to see the mathematics, "Barkiss is willing", but I promise you will not like it
Let's stop here, as you have grasped the main point, that is every element that enters into the Einstein Field Equations represents a tensor field, a point that is so often missed.
So what does this mean? Using no mathematics, I will say that every point on the spacetime 4-manifold is entitled to a tensor space, that is a set of tensors that obey the obvious rules of addition and scalar multiplication (these spaces are technically vector spaces, but let's not go there). There may be infinitely many tensors "living" at each point of our manifold.
A tensor field is, very roughly, a selection of just one of these tensors for each point of our spacetime manifold. But for a manifold of any sort to be useful in physics (and elsewhere, for that matter) we suppose that each point is entitled to at least 2 compatible coordinate systems. So multivariate calculus tells us exactly how to relate a single tensor at a single point using one coordinate system to the same tensor at the same point using a different coordinate system.
But calculus does not tell us how to relate an element of a tensor field at a point with an element defined at a different point - for that we need something called a "connection", which roughly says what it implies- it "connects" distinct points This is defined in terms of something called a metric tensor, which, by the same reasoning, is a tensor field - one metric tensor at each point. We need the metric so we know, extremely loosely speaking, the "distance" between the points we want to "connect"
And finally, the curvature tensor at each point - again a point-wise defined element of a tensor field - is defined in terms of the connection which is defined in terms of the metric tensor field, and you begin to see we do not have a simple model at all. For all that, you seem to be more-or-less on the right track
If you want to see the mathematics, "Barkiss is willing", but I promise you will not like it
The limited understanding that I have arrived at over the years is that GR cannot be described in a mechanistic way. I characterize it as an emprically based mathematical solution to predict the motion of objects. At relativistic velocities it is certainly way better than Newtonian gravity, but Newtonian gravity works just fine at less than relativistic velocities.
Yes, that seems to be the consensus as far as someone like me could gather. QG seems to be separate from GR, and I understand that GR is said to apply to the macro scale objects composed of particles in the Standard Model, while QG applies to the the quantum scale and must be formulated according to the laws of quantum mechanics.
My thoughts exactly. I have said that I attribute the lack of much notable progress toward a quantum solution to gravity to the prevailing research environment which seems to favor the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
I don't like to say this about myself, especially after QuarkHead briefly has taken me out of the standard crank category, but I'm not seeking an answer in geometry as such. It have it in my make up to expect cause and effect in nature. Everything works together and one thing leads to the next; the next thing has a history of all past connections, the preconditions.
On that basis, long ago I started my alternative views by learning the observations behind the theories, by learning about experiments, reading what the popular science media conveys to the layman about the incompatibilities between theories, and the incompleteness of consensus theories, and by reading a lot in all types of media; God love the Internet (Note: that is said as a figure of speech, since I believe that anything Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand.)
Out in the fringe I talk freely about things that QuarkHead and others would not be able to read for very long, lol, just because it is far afield from the current consensus theories. My ISU 2014 thread gets very little attention, which is part of why I sometimes frequent the "hard science" sub-forums for intelligent contact
.An admirable goal I must say. But don't you think that this is the goal of all science?
As yet, we just have not been able to achieve it.
We can describe how the Universe/spacetime evolved but as yet we do not know how or why....
We know that curved/warped spacetime in the presence of mass/energy causes the effect we call gravity, but as yet we have no underlying reason as to why.....although picturing the latter, spacetime curvature does to me reveal a semblance of why what we call gravity reveals itself.
I can't thank you enough for that. Tensor math isn't going be part of my repertoire. If I had started out pursuing my interest in science fifty years about, instead of staking out a careen in financial management, maybe I would be on top of it by now, lol.
I have layman level exposure to Einstein's work, and my failure to grasp the source of the local curvature, its components, variables, energy, etc., completely hampers any efforts to grasp the geometry of spacetime except at a novice level. Thanks for implying that I might pursue "Barkiss", but your first thought, that I wouldn't like it, is probably optimistic.
You might be able to give me something to contemplate though, if you would describe something, anything about the nature of energy that drives the curvature that "tells matter how to move".
You state what I consider the obvious about what we don't know, and you must have read my explanations for why I personally speculate, generally confined to the Alternative Theories sub-forum. But I have had more intelligent discussion here in P&M in a few days than I have had in the Fringe all last year. They can't take that away from me after the fact, though I always expect some complaints when I discuss alternative issues in P&M.
I have said many times...there is nothing wrong in reasonable logical speculative thinking beyond the standard mainstream accepted models.
I do it all the time.
The trick is to be able to keep in mind, it is just that...speculation....and sort the nonsensical stuff [like theorist constant is putting] and reasonable ideas.
QuarkHead, I think I'm taking you entirely out of context here but aho let's go...can you clarify something for me, I’m tripping over this…
In the spacetime geometrical picture, I thought the geodesic path was in spacetime, which may give the appearance of a curved path in space alone.
My confusion may be the difference between path and motion here??
In the spacetime geometrical picture, I thought the geodesic path was in spacetime, which may give the appearance of a curved path in space alone.
My confusion may be the difference between path and motion here??
Where?
It is. Space is a medium. And it isn't what spacetime is. Spacetime is an abstract thing in which there is no motion. See this post where Quarkhead conceded that motion in spacetime has no mathematical meaning .
That's wrong. You must surely know this. You don't create a magnetic field for the electron just because you decided to move past it. The electron doesn't have two fields. It has one field. The electromagnetic field. And when we annihilate it with a positron we get two electromagnetic waves.
It's all the usual stuff, see Wikipedia. Note this sentence: "The electric field, magnetic field, and direction of wave propagation are all orthogonal, and the wave propagates in the same direction as E x B. Also, E and B far-fields in free space, which as wave solutions depend primarily on these two Maxwell equations, are in-phase with each other". You're familiar with that, aren't you? Now see the next sentence: "This is guaranteed since the generic wave solution is first order in both space and time, and the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time". It really is like that canoe analogy.
It doesn't. It's the electromagnetic field. It's the electromagnetic wave. Think about that canoe analogy some more. The tilt of your canoe denotes E, the rate of change of tilt denotes B. But there's only one wave coming at you.
Only it doesn't. And it does matter what Einstein said. And what Minkowski said. And what Maxwell said.
Only that's wrong. The electron has an electromagnetic field.
Yes, space is a medium. It isn't nothing. Einstein talked about this in his 1920 Leyden Addess, and in his 1929 Field Theory lecture where he referred to a field as a state of space. The photons are out-of-phase so you don't notice their electromagnetic field-variation, you only notice their active gravitational mass. Then you interpret them as a gravitational wave, which you think of as space waving.
No.
And again, that's wrong. Take a look at what Jefimenko had to say:
"There is a widespread interpretation of Maxwell's equations indicating that spatially varying electric and magnetic fields can cause each other to change in time, thus giving rise to a propagating electromagnetic wave. However, Jefimenko's equations show an alternative point of view. Jefimenko says, "...neither Maxwell's equations nor their solutions indicate an existence of causal links between electric and magnetic fields. Therefore, we must conclude that an electromagnetic field is a dual entity always having an electric and a magnetic component simultaneously created by their common sources: time-variable electric charges and currents".
Continued.
There's no other way to say this: what's taught is wrong.James R said:
Agreed. Only once you appreciate that and read what Einstein said, you will then appreciate that the gravitational field is there because the speed of light varies. Not the other way around.James R said:
No. He just doesn't get it. The speed of light varies in the room you're in, it's real, and it's why light curves and why your pencil falls down. Quarkhead's coordinate system is just an abstract thing. He's lost in math.James R said:
So that people don't fall prey to the tautology where they think the speed of light is absolutely constant because we define the second and the metre using the local speed of light. And then we use that second and that metre to measure the local speed of light. Which is always 299,792,458 m/s. Duh.James R said:
No. Light moves slower when it's lower. If it didn't, optical clocks wouldn't go slower when they're lower. And your pencil wouldn't fall down. I explained all that stuff in Gravity Work Like This. Please move the thread back into Physics and Maths.James R said:
It doesn't. We've been through all that. When the clock is stopped it's stopped. Putting a stopped observer in front of it and saying he sees it ticking normally is a schoolboy error. It's the same for stopped light. Light is stopped. The observer doesn't see light moving at c, he doesn't see anything.James R said:
You read too much into your contemporary textbook.James R said:
Yes it's right. It's one field, the electromagnetic field. Electromagnetic field interactions result in linear "electric" force and rotational "magnetic" force. When one force predominates we speak of an electric field or a magnetic field. But there aren't two different types of field, just one field with this "screw" nature. It's something like a pump-action screwdriver. You exert a linear force and you get a rotational force. And vice versa.James R said:
No he isn't. The field is the electromagnetic field. The force is linear and/or rotational.James R said:
No! Do not try to put words into Minkowski's mouth because you've been taught some bastardized cargo-cult version of electromagnetism. He said what he said.James R said:
I understand the maths. I know why $$\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}$$. I know why $$|\mathbf F|= {1\over4\pi\varepsilon_0}{|q_1q_2|\over r^2}$$. You don't.James R said:
A-level plus more during a BSc Computer Science degree, plus more since. I've also done maths tutoring to A-level.James R said:
Broadly speaking, E and B in different directions, see this. But that doesn't tell you what the electromagnetic field is.James R said:
Yes. And I realise that E and B aren't actually fields.James R said:
No, I haven't taken any such course. I get my information about what's taught from what people tell me.James R said:
Good. You won't have any objections to moving a thread back into Physics and Maths then. This one: Time Travel is Science Fiction.James R said:
Spacetime curvature relates to the tidal force. That isn't detectable in the room you're in. However your falling pencil is.James R said:
What Einstein said is good enough for me. A curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position.James R said:
PS: Can we try to make these posts smaller?
Last edited:
Farsight, go back and read the rules of this forum. The way I understand the posting guidelines for Physics & Math, not only should those threads remain where they were put, the portion of this thread side tracked by your personal interpretaion(s) should be split off and moved over to join them.
There powers that be here, allow a great deal of leeway for discussion, which most of the time I find to be a good thing, in a lay oriented context such as this. But you push the limits so far that even a willow, would be in jeopardy of breaking!
Yes it is. Suppose for brevity we assume a Euclidean (flat) spacetime 4-manifold $$M$$ with coordinates x, y, z, ct. Then a curve - or path - in spacetime is given by a mapping, say, $$[0,1] \to M$$. Then for all $$p \in M$$ and all, say, $$s \in [0,1]$$ that $$p(s)=(x(s),y(s),z(s),ct(s))$$ exists as an image point in $$M$$ one calls this a curve or path with parameter $$s$$.
On the other hand, if you decide to use time as your parameter- i.e. describe motion - , you are forbidden by the ordinary rules of mathematics from writing $$p(t)=(x(t),y(t),z(t),ct(t))$$ as you cannot use the time-like coordinate to parametrize itself.
So motion is spacetime is not allowed
PS The curve or path I described above is not the same as a geodesic, that requires parallel transfer and all that sort of stuff, though it is related
Last edited:
This link does not seem to deal with this claim: "The sinusoidal E-field variation is the spatial derivative of four-potential, the sinusoidal M-field variation is the time derivative."
Farsight, can you show us the mathematics of this claim yourself? If you can, will you or will you produce some sort of whiny excuse?
One of the things they "said" was a bunch of mathematics that ultimately was used for evidence for their claims. So, ultimately, their mathematics is definitive to the contents of their claims. If you don't know their mathematics, you don't know their theories.
So, given that people who learn "what's taught" can build working electronic devices, what is your replacement theory and how can we use it to build electronic devices?
That is the opposite of what Koks wrote (and what Einstein wrote). You are again lying about your citation.
I have asked you to show how we derive the fall of a pencil from the differential in the speed of light. You have refused time and time again to produce this derivation. This seems unequivocal proof that you have no physics. After all, if we go by what people say, those who claim that the speed of light variation is due to gravity can also predict the fall of a pencil, but you cannot. So it seems that you are not a physicist like the people you disagree with, who clearly are.
Unless, of course, you can show us how to derive the fall of a pencil from the change in the speed of light.
If the speed of light changed, there would be noticeable effects, even with the tautology of the definition of the speed of light. So the tautological nature isn't really important. That's what all the papers you cite on Variable Speed of Light theories rely upon. It's almost as if you cherry-pick quotations from them without reading them.
Until you can answer the question about how to derive the fall of a pencil using your theory, there is no reason to consider it physics and we all know that there is no reason to consider it maths because you steadfastly refuse to use any maths.
To most physicists, it is a schoolboy error to use one system of coordinates with a known mathematical flaw and then stick to that system of coordinates despite GR telling you that physics can be done in every system of coordinates (as long as one adopts that the speed of light is constant in infinitesimal regions, as Einstein wrote).
People build things with their contemporary textbooks. They send rockets to other planets. Can you show us, using inhomogeneous space, how to get to another planet? The answer seems to be, "no," since you seem unable to do the most basic mathematics in the fields you discuss.
Why do you trust a mathematician here instead of a physicist? You constantly deride mathematics as somehow misleading.
You seem to use the word "understand" to mean that you have some kind of mystical connection to the maths that is different from knowledge or ability. Since the majority of evidence of you using maths on the internet is of maths errors.
When asked for the maths that support your claims, you dodge the question.
You seem to hang around a lot with physics crackpots (e.g., at your own forums), so how do you know that you can trust these people to give you accurate information about what is taught in university courses?
You keep saying this despite all your citations disagreeing with you. But I will ask you again: Can you show us how to derive the fall of a pencil from the difference in the speed of light in a room?
It would help if you would, once, show us the mathematics that supports your position and not doge off in a number of separate directions in a Gish Gallop. Just do one post that shows how a pencil falls and we can see your physics at work.