If light waves/photons loose energy when they interact with matter/electrons, why is this not called a Redshift ?

[Marvas]

In physics, a redshift is an increase in the wavelength, and corresponding decrease in the frequency and photon energy, of electromagnetic radiation (such as light).

When a photon of light hits an electron, the photon transfers some of its energy to the electron. If the photon has enough energy, it can excite the electron, which means that it can raise the electron to a higher energy state. In other words, the photon's energy can be absorbed by the electron, causing the electron to move to a higher energy level within an atom or molecule

Which means the 'photon' is essentially redshifted each time it bumbs into an electron, as the loss in energy translates to an increase in wavelength !

So light can be redshifted by any type of matter or medium which it encounters through space, as all matter is made from atoms which are made of electrons. And especially by plasma, which contains more electrons than ordinary matter. And which is the most common type of matter in the universe.

Plasma is one of four fundamental states of matter (the other three being solid, liquid, and gas) characterized by the presence of a significant portion of charged particles in any combination of ions or electrons. It is the most abundant form of ordinary matter in the universe, mostly in stars (including the Sun), but also dominating the rarefied intracluster medium and intergalactic medium.

And you know what else has many electrons flowing around ? An Electro-magnetic field. So it immediatelly follows that a light wave which travels in an EM field will loose energy as it interacts with its electrons, and become redshifted.

So given that it is known by scientists that light waves/photons loose energy when they interact with electrons, which are omnipresent in the universe, and this results in a decrease in frequency and an increase in wavelength, why is this not considered a Redshift in astronomy, and is completelly ignored by astrophysicists ?

Who instead are convinced that light is redshifted because 'space expands' because it has a 'dark energy' or vacuum energy. And not only they cannot prove that this dark vacuum energy exists, but it violates the mass-energy equivalence E=mc^2, so it cannot exist without violating elementary physics, and even if vacuum would contain any energy (and therefore mass), that would not expand space but curve it according to general relativity- which they use in their big bang cosmoillogical model. Which is completely unscientific, illogical and utterly insane.

 

[Marvas]

I call this ELECTRONIC REDSHIFT. Or e-shift for short. Does anyone have a problem with this ?
NASA, ESA, anyone ?

 

[Classical Motion]

As soon as a photon is emitted, it starts to lose energy. Because the photon spreads and rarefies. It loses density. It's loses amplitude, intensity. IT LOSES ENERGY. EM radiation is energy dissolving into space. Energy loss. It heats the space around this universe.

The frequency change is a result of emitter motion, not energy loss. Believe it or not, it's energy spacing........not energy loss.

I know this is hard for you to believe, but when light shifts, it does not lose it's frequency........it is only stretched. Light has two half's and they are asymmetrical. In other words when light shifts only half of it shifts. The emitted half............never changes frequency. Even after 13 billion years.

 

[Helio]

Which means the 'photon' is essentially redshifted each time it bumbs into an electron, as the loss in energy translates to an increase in wavelength !

It depends. The quantum bump to put an electron into a higher energetic state can be re-emitted when the electron drops back down to its original state. In this case the wavelength does not redshift. This is called inelastic scattering. Rayleigh and Thompson Scattering are examples of equations that address inelastic scattering.

When we recently saw the white corona surrounding the Sun-Moon during the total eclipse, what we were seeing is the white light from the Sun's surface scattering inelastically from the gases in the corona, revealing yet another argument that the Sun is not yellow, btw.

In general, when the wavelength of the light is larger than the particle, you'll get inelastic scattering, I think. I'm no physicist.

So light can be redshifted by any type of matter or medium which it encounters through space, as all matter is made from atoms which are made of electrons. And especially by plasma, which contains more electrons than ordinary matter. And which is the most common type of matter in the universe.

But space is mostly comprised of tiny hydrogen and helium, hence wavelengths essentially are unchanged.

So given that it is known by scientists that light waves/photons loose energy when they interact with electrons, which are omnipresent in the universe, and this results in a decrease in frequency and an increase in wavelength, why is this not considered a Redshift in astronomy, and is completelly ignored by astrophysicists ?

It is completely not ignored. Astronomers go to great lengths to determine such things in order to tweak their data to produce accurate results. The ISM (Interstellar Medium) was originally underestimated ,which dimmed starlight more than they thought, thus this produced distance errors.

Such things have been understood by them for almost 100 years, based on my readings.

Who instead are convinced that light is redshifted because 'space expands' because it has a 'dark energy' or vacuum energy.

The reason for space expansion is a separate issue. Recall that Newton's gravitational laws gave no reason for what gravity might be.

DE (Dark Energy) is simply a label to help us know we are talking about a mysterious energy responsible for the expansion. It, surprisingly, was anticipated by Einstein (then rejected by him) but Lemaitre, Eddington and others felt the vacuum energy should not be ignored. In 1927, Lemaitre's paper actually showed an acceleration period for our universe. He also gave us the very first estimate for the rate of expansion, but he knew his data was too limited to be very accurate.

And not only they cannot prove that this dark vacuum energy exists, but it violates the mass-energy equivalence E=mc^2, so it cannot exist without violating elementary physics, and even if vacuum would contain any energy (and therefore mass), that would not expand space but curve it according to general relativity- which they use in their big bang cosmoillogical model. Which is completely unscientific, illogical and utterly insane.

Hopefully your mistaken. There are well over two dozen DE theories that can be, eventually, tested to allow them to succeed or fail. Most will fail, of course. Perhaps all these will fail, for that matter. New telescopes are going up that will provide more information that should help.

 

[Marvas]

As soon as a photon is emitted, it starts to lose energy. Because the photon spreads and rarefies. It loses density. It's loses amplitude, intensity. IT LOSES ENERGY.

But the photon does not even have an amplitude. Its energy only depends on frequency. Problem is, a wave cannot have any frequency or energy if it has no amplitude, because energy is directly proportional to amplitude squared. If amplitude is zero, then frequency is 0 and energy is 0. And this, along many other reasons, is why the photon particle-wave cannot exist. But mainly because its just a particle-line with no amplitude. And because a radio photon would be several miles long. Which is a bit of a stretch for a PARTICLE.

EM radiation is energy dissolving into space. Energy loss. It heats the space around this universe.

I actually agree with this, as long as there is something in space which can be heated. Because a space in which there is nothing cannot be heated. As heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred between two substances at different temperatures.
But if space is not empty and is filled with a substance like say aether then it is this substance which is heated.

The frequency change is a result of emitter motion, not energy loss. Believe it or not, it's energy spacing........not energy loss.

I know what the Doppler effect is ok.

I know this is hard for you to believe, but when light shifts, it does not lose it's frequency........it is only stretched.

Thats what my refractional redshift also claims. Frequency is constant, only speed and wavelength change. But in Doppler effect the frequency drops, because the wavelength increases and speed is constant.

Light has two half's and they are asymmetrical. In other words when light shifts only half of it shifts. The emitted half............never changes frequency. Even after 13 billion years.

What are those halfs exactly ? The electric and magnetic parts ?
13 billion years is a big bang timeline and is wrong. Now they say its 20 cause Webb found galaxies older than that. So instead of admiting their cosmoillogical model is wrong, because it made a wroong prediction, they just change the prediction, via a postdiction ! Which is exactly what Einstein did, twice in a row. The universe is contracting, wait no its static cause I made up a cosmoillogical constant from my ass, actually no its expanding cause I removed it and now it expands instead of contracting. So he cant ever be wrong, because he just keeps modifing his general bullshit whenever it is falsified, and thats exactly what these big bang imbeciles do.

 

[Marvas]

But space is mostly comprised of tiny hydrogen and helium, hence wavelengths essentially are unchanged.

So what if they're tiny ? All atoms are tiny. And electrons are even tinier. But the electron density is very high in plasmas, which is the most common type of matter in the universe. And which light waves have to travel through.


But helium or hydrogen also absorb light, so it actually makes it loose some energy. So it doesnt matter if its tiny as long as it sucks energy.

The fact is that light heats any gas in passes through. Therefore, it looses energy. Therefore, it gets redshifted (according to the definition)

And the wavelengths are also changed by refraction from helium or hydrogen into space. See my other thread on Refractional redshift. I explained why that happens and its very very simple.

So I have discovered not one, but two redshift mechanisms which astronomers are unaware of. And Im not even an astronomer.

 

[Classical Motion]

Unfortunately, our modern science still believe that light travels like power down a power line.

AND THEN.....base the entire universe to this perversion. It's the silliest thing you will ever study.

Light is NOT a wave. Light is digital. It blinks. The "waveform" is called a duty cycle.....NOT an alternating polarity. It's on and it's off. IT'S NOT BACK AND FORTH.

The "frequency" of a duty cycle is different than the frequency of a wave. A wave is continuous and always there, a duty cycle is a ratio of there......and not there. Present and not present. Sound is a wave, a vibration.......light is NOT.

Have you any experience with radio and/or electronics?

When man uses a duty cycle, he will adjust the on time. But light is not like that. Light always has the same on time. Only the off time changes. For a electrical power engineer, this would be called an inverted duty cycle. Only the off time is throttled.

Are you with me so far?

 

[Marvas]

It is completely not ignored. Astronomers go to great lengths to determine such things in order to tweak their data to produce accurate results. The ISM (Interstellar Medium) was originally underestimated ,which dimmed starlight more than they thought, thus this produced distance errors.

I was talking about electron redshift, you're talking about something else here. It is completelly ignored, as they only know of three types of redshift.

Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches).

And two of them are wrong, because general relativity is wrong and they confused gravitational redshift with refractional redshift.

Such things have been understood by them for almost 100 years, based on my readings.

No they never understood that light gets redshifted by the mediums through which it travels ! They rejected this possibility because it contradicted their big bang theory, which is entirely based on a false redshift from space expansion. Because space expansion doesnt exist, and its just something they made up to make their big bang theory work, just like Einstein made up his cosmoillogcal constant to make his theory work.

The reason for space expansion is a separate issue. Recall that Newton's gravitational laws gave no reason for what gravity might be.

But space expansion is not an actual physical phenomenon, like gravity, it is just their insane explanation for the redshift. Just like their insane explanation for gravity is space curvation, which is curved by mass and energy. So on one hand they say that energy curves space, and on the other that it expands space, which is an obvious contradiction. And both explanations are based on general relativity, or variations of it, and both are wrong, because general relativity is wrong.

A theory which makes contradictory claims, such as that energy curves or contracts space, and energy expands space, is logically inconsistent and can only be false.

DE (Dark Energy) is simply a label to help us know we are talking about a mysterious energy responsible for the expansion.

DE is simply a label to let you know that you have no ideea what you're talking about. Because you simply made this 'mysterious energy' up, based on a cosmoillogical constant that Einstein made up, and later removed- because he realised how incredibly stupid it was. That is why big bag idiots still use it. Because their incredibly stupid space expansion cannot exist without this incredibly stupid constant.

And without the 'mysterious dark energy' of space !

But why would a mysterious energy of space cause an expansion of space ? If Einstein's theory claims that energy curves space ? And what does that even mean ? What can possibly expand in a an empty space ?? Aaaa, its a mystery ! Because the universe works in mysterious ways. Which we call dark. Dark mysterious science.

And how did you came to the conclusion that space expands in the first place ? Because you assume cosmological redshift is from space expansion, and you reject any other explanation. Thats a circular argument, and an argument from ignorance.

 

[Marvas]

It, surprisingly, was anticipated by Einstein (then rejected by him) but Lemaitre, Eddington and others felt the vacuum energy should not be ignored.

It was not anticipated by Einstein. He never said that his cosmoillogical constant had anything to do with a mysterious energy of vacuum. Because then he would have contradicted his own theory of mass energy equivalence. You know, E=mc^2 ? Any moron can see that it gives ZERO ENERGY of vacuum, because vacuum has ZERO MASS. Except the big bang morons.

In 1927, Lemaitre's paper actually showed an acceleration period for our universe. He also gave us the very first estimate for the rate of expansion, but he knew his data was too limited to be very accurate

Like this moron ! A catholic priest who studied maths at Vatican holy class and who thought he was a physicist. And not only that, but that he understood Einsteins theory better than Einstein himself ! Who drove even Einstein insane, as he bluntly said to him : 'Your maths are correct, but your physics are abominable' So Einstein did not anticipate anything that this idiotic big bang priest said, on the contrary he anticipated that he was full of it. Einstein also said: 'Since mathematicians have invaded the relativity theory, I myself dont understand it anymore.' So he was really frustrated by these big bang morons, who hijacked his theory and gave it a completely different interpretation, making Einstein look like a fool who could not understand what his own theory was about.

It was all about the space expansion, and about Lemaitre's big bang creation theory, as predicted by Lemaitre himself ! And he cant be wrong cause hes inspired by the holy ghost, plus the Vatican's science department has a track record of being right on scientific topics. Like when they said the earth is in the center of the universe, and burned people at the stake for proving otherwise.

 

[Helio]

It was not anticipated by Einstein. He never said that his cosmoillogical constant had anything to do with a mysterious energy of vacuum.

His cosmological constant was a force on the fabric of space that expanded outward equal to the collapse rate due to the mass effect on spacetime. The difference today is that this force is far greater than anyone could have dreamed if indeed the universe is accelerating in its expansion rate.

Because then he would have contradicted his own theory of mass energy equivalence. You know, E=mc^2 ? Any moron can see that it gives ZERO ENERGY of vacuum, because vacuum has ZERO MASS. Except the big bang morons.

I don't think "moron" means what you think it means. If "moron" means someone who defines science as objective-based and where multiple separate lines of evidence are important to make a theory valid, then I'm one of those.

Vacuum energy has no mass term in and of itself, thus what good is e=mc^2?

Like this moron ! A catholic priest who studied maths at Vatican holy class and who thought he was a physicist. And not only that, but that he understood Einsteins theory better than Einstein himself ! Who drove even Einstein insane, as he bluntly said to him : 'Your maths are correct, but your physics are abominable'

The priest not only got a PhD in physics from MIT, specializing in GR, but also did post doctorate work under Edington. It was this relationship with Edington that helped Lemiatre get Edington's attention to his incredible work, which de Sitter soon saw as wonderful.

The problem at the time were those pesky redshifts from Slipher. Einstein's cosmological solution was fine except he had no explanation for the redshifts. De Sitter's solution was different but it explained redshifts, though he simplified his model by eliminating all matter in the universe. Lemaitre solved both their issues.

Einstein never reported to be stressed by Lemaitre, or Friedmann's expanding universe equations. He was stressed, however, with finding the type of math necessary to address warped spacetime due to masses.

So Einstein did not anticipate anything that this idiotic big bang priest said, on the contrary he anticipated that he was full of it. Einstein also said: 'Since mathematicians have invaded the relativity theory, I myself dont understand it anymore.' So he was really frustrated by these big bang morons, who hijacked his theory and gave it a completely different interpretation, making Einstein look like a fool who could not understand what his own theory was about.

Nonsense.

It was all about the space expansion, and about Lemaitre's big bang creation theory, as predicted by Lemaitre himself ! And he cant be wrong cause hes inspired by the holy ghost, plus the Vatican's science department has a track record of being right on scientific topics. Like when they said the earth is in the center of the universe, and burned people at the stake for proving otherwise.

Wrong. Lemaitre kept science and his religion separate. When the Pope thought his theory argued for a Gen 1 account, Lemaitre wrote the Pope and told him that it doesn't, hence the Pope discontinued arguing the connection.

Lemaitre was correct, and one reason goes to your misunderstanding of how light interacts with electrons. The first ~ 380,000 years, the photons were constantly scattered by free-electrons, so visibility could be measured in mm. Once the electrons were captured, forming the first atoms, then the photons were free to travel endlessly. This was a BB prediction determined by Alpher and Hermann, which was later discovered and is known as the CMBR. No other theory explains this, hence BBT, along with another dozen separate lines of independent evidence, has made BBT mainstream.

 

[Atlan0001]

His cosmological constant was a force on the fabric of space that expanded outward equal to the collapse rate due to the mass effect on spacetime. The difference today is that this force is far greater than anyone could have dreamed if indeed the universe is accelerating in its expansion rate.


I don't think "moron" means what you think it means. If "moron" means someone who defines science as objective-based and where multiple separate lines of evidence are important to make a theory valid, then I'm one of those.

Vacuum energy has no mass term in and of itself, thus what good is e=mc^2?



The priest not only got a PhD in physics from MIT, specializing in GR, but also did post doctorate work under Edington. It was this relationship with Edington that helped Lemiatre get Edington's attention to his incredible work, which de Sitter soon saw as wonderful.

The problem at the time were those pesky redshifts from Slipher. Einstein's cosmological solution was fine except he had no explanation for the redshifts. De Sitter's solution was different but it explained redshifts, though he simplified his model by eliminating all matter in the universe. Lemaitre solved both their issues.

Einstein never reported to be stressed by Lemaitre, or Friedmann's expanding universe equations. He was stressed, however, with finding the type of math necessary to address warped spacetime due to masses.


Nonsense.

Wrong. Lemaitre kept science and his religion separate. When the Pope thought his theory argued for a Gen 1 account, Lemaitre wrote the Pope and told him that it doesn't, hence the Pope discontinued arguing the connection.

Lemaitre was correct, and one reason goes to your misunderstanding of how light interacts with electrons. The first ~ 380,000 years, the photons were constantly scattered by free-electrons, so visibility could be measured in mm. Once the electrons were captured, forming the first atoms, then the photons were free to travel endlessly. This was a BB prediction determined by Alpher and Hermann, which was later discovered and is known as the CMBR. No other theory explains this, hence BBT, along with another dozen separate lines of independent evidence, has made BBT mainstream.

There is a big difference in dimensionalities between ["were"] and ["were", "are", and "will ever be"]! There is no such dimension of "were" to the REALTIME "universe", and to the future histories' tense of "past-future tense" SPACETIME, without "are" and "will ever be"!

Still!!!!

 

[Helio]

There is a big difference in dimensionalities between ["were"] and ["were", "are", and "will ever be"]! There is no such dimension of "were" to the REALTIME "universe", and to the future histories' tense of "past-future tense" SPACETIME, without "are" and "will ever be"!

Still!!!!

"Were" is used simply in the past tense. 13.8 Gyrs. ago was a long time ago.

 

[Atlan0001]

"Were" is used simply in the past tense. 13.8 Gyrs. ago was a long time ago.

You see it as not being in 'superposition'. I do! There are more fully formed and starred galaxies to discover further out than 13.5 billion light years. Astronomers, as in past many centuries, will push the Horizon back to 27-28 billion light years but with even greater scopes galaxies will still be discovered too close to that Horizon, too.

The Planck (Big Bang) Horizon is not on the same SPACETIME past-future histories' plane of either space or time's curvatures with those galaxies. It, the Horizon, is in eternally permanent "superposition" to them . . . just as it is inside us and inside of everything else of mass matter and energy here in emergent SPACE and now at the beginning of time (REALTIME).

 

[Marvas]

His cosmological constant was a force on the fabric of space that expanded outward equal to the collapse rate due to the mass effect on spacetime. The difference today is that this force is far greater than anyone could have dreamed if indeed the universe is accelerating in its expansion rate

A force really ? Where did Einstein say its a force ? Arent forces measured in Newton ? His constant is measured in 1/m^2. So its not a force. And its not an Energy either. Because that is measured in Joule.

But even it was a force, there simply is no way you can apply such force to an EMPTY space. The 'fabric of spacetime' is not a physical thing which can be acted upon witha force. If you can expand this fabric of space with a force, then please show me how you do it ! Or how anyone else has done it. If not, then stop making such ridiculous and clearly non-scientific claims.

Vacuum energy has no mass term in and of itself, thus what good is e=mc^2?

What good is mass-energy equivalence ? Because we can equivalate energy with mass. Dooh !

So if space has energy, it has mass. Because mass and energy are equivalent.

The priest not only got a PhD in physics from MIT, specializing in GR, but also did post doctorate work under Edington.

So why did Einstein say that his physics were abominable ? Didnt he now he had a PHD in physics ? And that the priest was a specialist in his theory much more specialized than Einstein himself ?

And somehow he did not understand that mass-energy equivalence makes vacuum energy zero. Or that vacuum energy will cause space to curve, and not expand. Because GR states that mass/energy curves space !

I dont care about his relation with Eddington. But Einstein actually said that the priest sucked at physics. That his physics were abominable. Probably because his physics clearly contradicted both Einsteins special and general relativity, for the reasons that I have explained.

Einstein never reported to be stressed by Lemaitre, or Friedmann's expanding universe equations.

No, he just said his physics were abominable. That is, the PHD priest specialized in GR was kinda like you who dont understand the mass energy equivalence. And who thinks that he can expand teh fabric of space with a (immaginary) force. Which is real because Einstein made up a cosmoillogical constant from nothing, altough this constant force is measured in a different unit so its not really a force. And its not even a constant, because it changes.

And he just contradicted Friddmann and said that his equations are wrong and his maths are wrong. And then he said that he doesnt understand his own theory after matematicians have invaded his relativity theory. Who were those pesky matematicians ? Surely not Fridamann and Lemaitre ??!??!

And the very usage of the word 'invaded' shows that he was extremelly irritated by them. If you say someone invades your personal space, it means you are irritated by him and you want him to get the fu.ck out of your space. Or curved space in his case. Which was not expanding in his case.

 

[Helio]

A force really ? Where did Einstein say its a force ? Arent forces measured in Newton ? His constant is measured in 1/m^2. So its not a force. And its not an Energy either. Because that is measured in Joule.

But even it was a force, there simply is no way you can apply such force to an EMPTY space. The 'fabric of spacetime' is not a physical thing which can be acted upon witha force. If you can expand this fabric of space with a force, then please show me how you do it ! Or how anyone else has done it. If not, then stop making such ridiculous and clearly non-scientific claims.

Gravity can be expressed in force terms. Newton’s laws handles these nicely, though not as accurately as GR.

Thus the counter-gravity term of the cosmological constant can be treated similarly. Today, this has grown to become labelled DE.

Here is just one of perhaps thousands of examples of using “force”: https://www.space.com/dark-energy-what-is-it

It’s ridiculous to call it “ridiculous”.

We don’t understand what DE is, but it doesn’t hurt to express such things in terms of things we understated fairly well.

So why did Einstein say that his physics were abominable ? Didnt he now he had a PHD in physics ? And that the priest was a specialist in his theory much more specialized than Einstein himself ?

Einstein rejected any view of a non-static universe. He had already rejected Friedman for claiming GR said otherwise.

I dont care about his relation with Eddington. But Einstein actually said that the priest sucked at physics. That his physics were abominable. Probably because his physics clearly contradicted both Einsteins special and general relativity, for the reasons that I have explained.

No. Einstein admitted his math was fine, but an expanding universe was not a model he found acceptable. Keep in mind that in 1916 the MW was the universe in the eyes of mainstream.

This was changing at the time of Lemaitre (late 1920’s). Indeed, it was those pesky redshifts of Slipher that was beginning to look like extra-galactic objects, which his static model could not solve.

And he just contradicted Friddmann and said that his equations are wrong and his maths are wrong. And then he said that he doesnt understand his own theory after matematicians have invaded his relativity theory. Who were those pesky matematicians ? Surely not Fridamann and Lemaitre ??!??!

Einstein did tell Friedmann that his math was wrong but Einstein corrected this once he showed Einstein his error.

There are many theories that were introduced by many cosmologists using GR. Not all were correct. One model gave math to black holes.

 

[Marvas]

The priest not only got a PhD in physics from MIT, specializing in GR,

You mean the big bang priest got a PHD in theoretical pseudo-physics, also known as metaphysics or bullshit physics. Which can be easily disproved with classical physics using refraction, as I did here:

An introduction to Refractional redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift

An introduction to Refractional redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift Marius L. Vasile @ Vasile effect In this article I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with...

forums.space.com

And here:

Shapiro time delay is caused by Refraction. Gravitational time dilation does not exist.

Shapiro time delay is caused by refraction. Gravitational time dilation does not exist. The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic Solar System tests of general relativity. Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to...

forums.space.com

And here:

Gravity does not cause any light bending, NASA scientist claims. But what does ?

https://beyondmainstream.org/scientist/dr-edward-dowdye/ Once more, when you are looking at stars near the sun, you notice that the light is only bent when the starlight is inside the corona of the sun, but did not bend outside the corona where Einstein predicted. Einstein’s general theory of...

forums.space.com

And here:

The absurdity of space-time curvature and geodesics

Einstein's theory of gravity is based on the notion that space-time can be curved (by mass and energy) and uses geodesics to describe its curvature. So what is a geodesic ? A geodesic is the shortest line between two points on a spherical or curved surface (Oxford def.). But space has no...

forums.space.com

No one has been able to disprove any of my simple demonstrations, because they're true and GR is wrong.

And I highly doubt that someone who cant even understand the most basic relativistic equations, such as E=mc^2, can understand the insanely complicated ones from GR, which Einstein himself claimed that he could not understand.

 

[Helio]

If you are truly serious about your work then go to one of these sites with your theories:
physics.org
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/ [ATM section]

Both will require you to adequately explain your math.

Handwaving will not be enough; foul language will get you tossed.