Electromagnetism, Gravity and Black Holes Explained!

After about a decade of physics research, I've put all my studies and obsession of knowledge integrated thought processing into a video nutshell as an attempt to explain the unexplainable...
Enjoy!

Feel free to ask me questions!
 
Last edited:
After about a decade of physics research, I've put all my studies and obsession of knowledge integrated thought processing into a video nutshell as an attempt to explain the unexplainable...
Enjoy!

Feel free to ask me questions!
Let's start with the opening statements.

You say that light has a 'constant' speed from 'drag' due to the local mass and electromagnetic fields which is why the speed of an emitter and light do not add up to a new larger number. I suppose you would suggest that the reason the impact speed between light and an object approaching still does not add up is drag (no emitter involved)? How does that work?

I suppose that a 'switched off' emitter changes nothing? If so why mention it? The fact that a light photon travels at 'c' always irrespective of field strength, say between galaxies, means that regardless of this there is some mysterious balancing cause at work; what is it?

Your ability to illustrate is very impressive (respect) but your cosmology is er fantastical :D

We all have some competence in our expert field and as so attempt to explain everything within it. Mine is Supply Chain Management but try as I might I have not succeeded. Collaboration seems to be the answer but in my case it still has not worked;)
 
Let's start with the opening statements.
You say that light has a 'constant' speed from 'drag' due to the local mass and electromagnetic fields which is why the speed of an emitter and light do not add up to a new larger number. I suppose you would suggest that the reason the impact speed between light and an object approaching still does not add up is drag (no emitter involved)? How does that work?
Yes, I am suggesting that the reason the impact speed between light and an approaching object still does not add or subtract is due to "drag" (for lack of a better word) because the medium which carries the photon is the overall surrounding EM field which is interconnected and affected by all electron matter within its proximity. Think of the field as an object directly tied to all electrons that can carry waves that can refract or change in speed and adjust according to an average of parameters at a certain location. Lidar (Light Detection and Ranging) beam's cannot change in speed otherwise they would be highly inaccurate at determining the speed of any moving matter. But if the Lidar is used at the bottom of the ocean near a polar icecap, if it were to travel through ice, then water, then heavy water, its readings on the speed of a torpedo would be inaccurate unless the volume size, boundaries and refraction parameters were done in aftermath.
I suppose that a 'switched off' emitter changes nothing? If so why mention it? The fact that a light photon travels at 'c' always irrespective of field strength, say between galaxies, means that regardless of this there is some mysterious balancing cause at work; what is it?
The speed of light not directly tied to the strength of a field, but its propagation is. Light waves propagate much more effectively near the sun compared to earth. Light and sound waves propagate by different means, but light propagation is somewhat analogous to sound waves requiring a non-vacuum medium to travel. Light waves require an electromagnetic field. The strength of a magnetic field or electric field does not directly affect the speed of light, but the density and energy of the charged particles within it does and the particles generate magnetic and electric fields. So its a bit counterintuitive. Anyways, there is really no way to get rid of all EM fields to test this unless you were able to travel outside our solar system away from the electromagnetic sun to the center of the Boötes Void and try to turn on a laser. Even the laser has to be made of atoms and the presence of electrons in the resonator of a laser can generate an EM field that can propagate the beam to a certain limited distance even in the electron deficient space of the Boötes Void.
 
Last edited:
Two laser beams will NOT interact with one another unless there is a charge at the beam's intersection.
Nobody likes a "know it all" because someone who knows everything becomes some kind of authority and its in man's nature to resist and rebel.
I agree, I do not know everything about light, but I am attempting to understand some of it and so far it appears to make sense.

Two laser beams will not interact unless there is a charge at the beam's intersection. This is true and there is a reason why and I can get back to you for an answer, but I wonder, do you know why?
 
Didn’t mean to offend. I wish I did know it all. The interaction and superposition of EM depends on the state of the EM field. Angular or linear state. An acceleration state or a velocity state. Different rules and interactions with different states and combinations of states.

It sounds complicated but actually is simple. It’s blending handedness and the difference between velocity and acceleration. Takes a little time but simple steps.

A charge particle is a EM field converter. And the only source and the only sink, AND the only surface area for ALL EM fields.

That’s why when you drop one in the intersection and two lasers, the beams will interfere with each other. With no charge, it’s only a temporary spacial occupancy. Not a field interaction. But with a particle there is interaction. And a change in the beams.

Just an opinion, I’ll disturb no further. Didn’t mean to cloud you up.
 
Didn’t mean to offend. I wish I did know it all. The interaction and superposition of EM depends on the state of the EM field. Angular or linear state. An acceleration state or a velocity state. Different rules and interactions with different states and combinations of states.

It sounds complicated but actually is simple. It’s blending handedness and the difference between velocity and acceleration. Takes a little time but simple steps.

A charge particle is a EM field converter. And the only source and the only sink, AND the only surface area for ALL EM fields.

That’s why when you drop one in the intersection and two lasers, the beams will interfere with each other. With no charge, it’s only a temporary spacial occupancy. Not a field interaction. But with a particle there is interaction. And a change in the beams.

Just an opinion, I’ll disturb no further. Didn’t mean to cloud you up.
Good explanation. I've studied the Lorentz equation and its fascinating. I need to study it more and do more computer simulations on it. I honestly do not know everything and will be learning for the rest of my life. It reminds me of a quote from the movie "Ghost in the Darkness".
Val Kilmer asked: "Have you ever failed in anything?" Michael Douglas replied: "Only in life".
In my opinion, if you are a bad learner or think you don't need to learn anything, you will fail at life. You'll also fail if you don't fight to stop troublemaker bullies.
 
Last edited:
There are so many issues in your posts! I like your attempt to involve loads of stuff but it gets a bit confusing for me. We agree on some basics do we?

  • The speed of light in a vacuum is 'c' approx. 300000km / sec
  • Light speed varies in other materials (not really because it gets absorbed and rereleased at the quantum level)
  • Gravity permeates the universe but weakly at distance (from 'well' sources)
  • Electromagnetic fields permeate the universe also
  • Time, distance and mass can be dilated by speed and gravity wells (dilated as in slowed, shortened or increased relatively depending on the subject)
  • Any interaction with light is always at 'c'
  • Light has a rest mass of zero

Do your ideas agree with these basics? there may be more added by others. It's just a suggestion to help you assess stuff. Just trying to be helpful. It's worth checking what I have said above on some trusted up to date media. I say trusted because anyone can make an error or tell lies etc.

At the end of the day it is fun, even Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking engaged in wild hypothesis on this and that but always with a fact check in the end.
 
There are so many issues in your posts! I like your attempt to involve loads of stuff but it gets a bit confusing for me. We agree on some basics do we?

  • The speed of light in a vacuum is 'c' approx. 300000km / sec
  • Light speed varies in other materials (not really because it gets absorbed and rereleased at the quantum level)
  • Gravity permeates the universe but weakly at distance (from 'well' sources)
  • Electromagnetic fields permeate the universe also
  • Time, distance and mass can be dilated by speed and gravity wells (dilated as in slowed, shortened or increased relatively depending on the subject)
  • Any interaction with light is always at 'c'
  • Light has a rest mass of zero

Do your ideas agree with these basics? there may be more added by others. It's just a suggestion to help you assess stuff. Just trying to be helpful. It's worth checking what I have said above on some trusted up to date media. I say trusted because anyone can make an error or tell lies etc.

At the end of the day it is fun, even Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking engaged in wild hypothesis on this and that but always with a fact check in the end.
I know what you mean. I started from scratch because I felt that I was trapped inside a box with variables that contradicted each other concerning bent space explaining black holes and electromagnetic behavior.
  • The speed of light in a vacuum is 'c' approx. 300000km / sec
  • Light speed varies in other materials (not really because it gets absorbed and rereleased at the quantum level)
I took these facts into account. Even the medium of outer space is not a perfect vacuum. The speed of light through a medium varies depending on the density and velocity of electrons in the medium. I also mentioned that if we use the speed of light to measure the speed of matter, then the limit of the reading-speed is tied to the speed of light which means we cannot use the speed of light to tell whether something is going faster than it because it would always return its limit. This is relevant when accelerating particles in a particle accelerator and attempting to measure their speed. At full power, trillions of protons will race around the LHC accelerator ring 11 245 times a second, travelling at 99.9999991% the speed of light. I wonder how accurate that reading is.
  • Gravity permeates the universe but weakly at distance (from 'well' sources)
I am suggesting that gravity is a nuclear-force bound well of electromagnetically reluctant mass, not by mass bending space. So ya, I'm outside that box which requires a major gear shift and can throw you off. If gravity is caused by the electromagnetic reluctance of neutrons, then the strong nuclear force would be required for gravity to pull charged nuclei together. The force of gravity appears "weaker" because an electromagnetically reluctant object is not electrically or magnetically tied to field, but rather encapsulated by it as the quantum particles generating the field seek Lorentz force points of least resistance effectively moving electromagnetically reluctant mass toward a predominant core where it preexists. If electromagnetically reluctant matter puts little warped pockets in the field then the field would become filled with an array of topographic resistance zones that drop off in strength with each other by 1/r^2. Intuitively this explains why a gravitational field drops off in strength at the same rate as an electric field because the electromagnetic field is doing the work. It also explains why a spinning gyroscope full of neutron dense matter exhibits drag and resistance to axial tilt. A spinning gyroscope can tilt over the edge of a table without falling off from gravity because the velocity of its mass affects the distribution of its weight in the field closer to its axis. The axis is held in place by the symmetrical velocity of mass pulling on it in every planar direction, but its weight from its mass is certainly redistributed toward the axis otherwise it would fall off the table. Gravity is a weak force from mass that can be altered by certain velocity. It must be interacting with the field for this phenomenon to be present. This goes even deeper into more subjects such as inertia and momentum.
  • Time, distance and mass can be dilated by speed and gravity wells (dilated as in slowed, shortened or increased relatively depending on the subject)
I am suggesting that electromagnetism itself is responsible for the passage of time rather than the bending of space itself. Space itself without electromagnetic information is undefined. A day is the time it takes earth to spin once on its axis relative to the sun, but without the light of the sun and the stars in the sky, there would be no reference to tell the length of one day of rotation. I am also suggesting that time dilation is not an effect of bent space, but an effect of electromagnetic wave dilation as the waves pass through different densities of mass which affects the hertz of the material domain in relation to other material domains.
  • Any interaction with light is always at 'c'
Not sure what you mean here, but it appears that light can be slowed below 'c'.
  • Light has a rest mass of zero
Edit: I did some research and "rest mass" may also be called "invariant mass" which is the portion of the total mass of an object or system of objects that is independent of the overall motion of the system.

It appears to me that photons are not independent of the overall motion of a material system because matter absorbs, refracts, reflects or emits photons and we have no other way of measuring them. Photons have zero mass, so its contradictory when we attempt to measure the momentum of a photon because momentum is dependent on mass where p=mv. Does the word momentum have more than one definition? It appears to me that electromagnetic waves do not have momentum, but the electrons and charged particles of mass that propagate them do. EM waves attenuate over distance which is a reduction of wave amplitude rather than speed or momentum. When EM waves slow down through refraction, it is an interchange of field parameters which affects the waves, not momentum because the EM waves go right back up to the same speed as they exit the field of the refracting material.
 
Last edited:
There was an experiment under extreme conditions some years ago that was supposed to have slowed light. I don't know the details or truth of it. However, when light is travelling through stuff it travels at the speed of light BUT it is absorbed and remitted and other complex interactions that give an impression of travelling slower. When not interacting it is 'c' . That said it is decades since the process was explained to me so you need to check.
Zero rest mass yes but EMR has energy and is affected by gravity or rather gravity wells and the like.

Light can have momentum even though it doesn't have mass. It's all about its energy and the way it moves. Anything with energy has momentum, and since light is energy (think photons), it carries momentum. That's why light can actually exert pressure on objects, like solar sails in space.
 
Gibsense said:

There was an experiment under extreme conditions some years ago that was supposed to have slowed light. I don't know the details or truth of it. However, when light is travelling through stuff it travels at the speed of light BUT it is absorbed and remitted and other complex interactions that give an impression of travelling slower. When not interacting it is 'c' . That said it is decades since the process was explained to me so you need to check.

Here is a video that goes into this, but unfortunately his answer at the end is "yes and no".

View: https://youtu.be/lVmXy1Erd9o?feature=shared
Gibsense said:

Zero rest mass yes but EMR has energy and is affected by gravity or rather gravity wells and the like.

EMR is affected by gravity because the electromagnetic field that the light waves move through becomes bent from electromagnetically reluctant mass that warps the field around itself.
Light can have momentum even though it doesn't have mass. It's all about its energy and the way it moves. Anything with energy has momentum,

Potential energy such as a rock at the top of a mountain doesn't have momentum until it breaks loose. If you are talking about the charged particles inside of it, then yes, they have momentum, but what about a quantum computer chip? A supercooled cluster of atoms in a Bose Einstein state have very low momentum and can even stop entirely, but their mass remains the same. Mass doesn't start to weigh less in a gravitational field as the mass gets colder or slower. A warm superconductor still weighs the same when its supercooled. Proof:
View: https://youtu.be/uR35VTWmdYg?feature=shared

At super low temperatures, electron orbitals become relatively static and arrange into crystal-like structured networks that can conduct quantized charge more efficiently at the nuclear level between atoms, but magnetic field propagation is lower because magnetic induction requires freely moving charge. This is why a superconductor exhibits the Meissner effect. The Meissner effect in a superconductor is magnetic reluctance, but the magnetic reluctance allows for inversely proportional electric conduction in greater levels unlike a neutron. A superconductor does not get heavier as it cools nor does anything, unless it shrinks and mass is added.

The equation E=mc^2 is misinterpreted by some who think that the "m" mass is proportional to the speed of light. The mass of an object does not increase as the kinetic energy from velocity and momentum increase. If this were the case, then astronauts should weigh more in a rocket that is reaching gravitational escape velocity, but they actually begin to weigh less as they move away from the earth due to their much greater velocity. An increasing velocity of the ISS, does not increase its mass and cause it to weigh more and fall to the earth. G-force is not caused by an increase of mass, but is due the inertia of mass which is the drag that mass exhibits from the surrounding field that the velocity and acceleration of matter are tied to.

As far as energy goes. Energy is present in any system that is out of balance and moving toward balance. Any system in perfect balance only has potential energy such as the mass of iron. So E=mc^2 is very specific to situation and should not be used as general reference for all sources of energy.
Gibsense said:

and since light is energy (think photons), it carries momentum. That's why light can actually exert pressure on objects, like solar sails in space.

Or the Crookes radiometer? Its not the mass of the photons colliding and moving the object, its the energetic massless field waves interacting with the particles in and around the object causing them to jiggle and heat up and the heat differential on one side of the sail compared to the other causes recoil and thrust. There is enough gas in space that the sun is constantly emitting for solar sails to work. Here is a video proof:
 
Last edited: