[nilak (OP)]

The paper below contains a basic concept that predicts that any EM wave can interact with matter through what we call gravity the same way photons do. That includes low spectrum EM waves.
In this concept mass, matter and and energy have the same meaning thus mass and matter become redundant.
http://vixra.org/abs/1612.0239

If you think this is not true can you explain why radio waves are not a source of black energy ?

[GoC]

If you think this is not true can you explain why radio waves are not a source of black energy ?

The source of all energy is black energy c except for kinetic energy. But even kinetic energy is indirectly caused by dark energy c. This is by E=mc^2. There is no motion possible without dark energy, We can view dark energy indirectly from all of the spectrum wave forms.

[nilak (OP)]

I can also ask why radio waves are not a source of visible energy ? If you add them to the visible energy,  you are going to find no black  energy anymore.
The concept says everything is kinetic energy since everything is light or more precisely EM waves.

[GoC]

Interesting - describe a Em wave.

I can also ask why radio waves are not a source of visible energy ?

Most waves are detectable. visual is a human concept of a specific range. So I do not understand your concept of visible energy.. Energy c can never be viewed directly. You would need a shutter speed faster than the speed of light. Even then it would not work because there is nothing to carry the information.
Radio waves are a indirect source of detecting energy c.

If you add them to the visible energy,  you are going to find no black  energy anymore.

Black energy is the spectrum waves are not necessary for existence of energy c.

[]The concept says everything is kinetic energy since everything is light or more precisely EM waves[]

I can understand why you might think that. The main stream is leaning that way. Everything is made of energy yes. Similar to how a black hole is made from mass electrons are made from energy. You would not describe a BH as a sun. Electrons are created by fusion (compressed energy c). A positron negatron pair do not spontaneously appear in space. That is the wave representation of the pair and not the actual physical pair. The current model is confused by the belief you can have something for nothing. The confusion goes away when you recognize something is moving the electrons. Are BH's moving the galaxy or is the galaxy moving the BH's? Neither, Space is telling mass how to move.

[nilak (OP)]

Visible energy is not a correct term. I was referring to ordinary energy. Radio waves which are simple EM waves, are not added to ordinary  matter, but they create gravity . I'm not sure about dark energy. In my concept, ordianary matter and energy generate gravity through the same mechanism.

In any case, I don't think there is anything else, other than excitations in the EM filed. The unknown gravitational effects are generated by these fields.

[GoC]

I don't think there is anything else, other than excitations in the EM filed. The unknown gravitational effects are generated by these fields.

Without a mechanism to create attraction how can we claim gravitational effects to any EM fields? What is the construction of an EM field that causes gravity?

[nilak (OP)]

I don't have a good answer to this. However, there are some studies about  gravitomagnetism (GEM).
My model says that space must remain flat. It is defined as flat hence gravity as curved space is out of question. The equations equivalent to SR equations work. However, simulating gravity is much more complicated.

"While Maxwell's equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations, the gravitomagnetism equations were not". However acording to my concept they must not be invariant, because time dilation is a geometric illusion and space is flat.
In conclusion, GEM should work better with my concept.

A potential problem with GEM is that equations involve charge which  might alter the results. A model of an electron containing only excitations of EM field is the correct way to make the simulation. Simulation of gravity should be done using olny EM fileds excitations not abstract concepts like charge. That is what my concept says.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

[GoC]

Simulation of gravity should be done using olny EM fileds excitations not abstract concepts like charge.

While we agree charge is a questionable part of main stream model I have to remain with dilation of space. This is because light bends around planets. We observe the curve. Curve is also a questionable explanation because it is a 3d dilation from the center of mass (like onion rings).  Excitations in EM fields is another way of saying the speed of light c changes causing gravity. While that is the most obvious cause it is not the most likely cause. We measure the same speed of light in every frame. That is one of the corner stones of relativity. If EM is always measured in c than excitations in EM are unlikely. If the speed of light is constant than the distance must change for the tick rate of clocks to slow with an increase of mass.

Einstein had difficulty explaining GR effectively because he did not have the tools needed. The MMX stripped him of those tools. This left him with postulates to follow rather than a cause and affect. He understood motion in a type of Aether would invalidate relativity and he said as much. You cannot have motion and light being the same speed in all directions. But to get around that there is a simple explanation. A c spin type of Aether that actually causes Relativity. In GR mass actually increases the distance between the Aether spin particles causing clocks to reduce their tick rate while c remains constant. With the space increasing volume mass increases volume to match the frames tick rate.  SR has the equivalence in a visual increase in the measuring stick. While vector velocity matches the measurement to the tick rate of the frames clock. Once again confounding the measurements to measure the same speed of light in every frame. It can be shown geometry math follows relativity observations.

Your understanding does not follow relativity gamma terms. You need dilation to have the observed equivalence between GR and SR. Curved space is real and the cause of gravity. Mass is attracted to a more dilated space where the distance between spin particles is greater. Mass is its own gravity generator with its affect on space. Mass tells space how to dilate and space tells mass how to move.

In your deviation from Relativity what is the mechanism for EM excitation?

[nilak (OP)]

In your deviation from Relativity what is the mechanism for EM excitation?

It is the wave equation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
where vph is always c because the medium is always the vacuum.
The time and space in the equation are absoulte.
It must be a way to create the appearance of an electric charge.

Einstein had difficulty explaining GR effectively because he did not have the tools needed. The MMX stripped him of those tools. This left him with postulates to follow rather than a cause and affect. He understood motion in a type of Aether would invalidate relativity and he said as much. You cannot have motion and light being the same speed in all directions. But to get around that there is a simple explanation. A c spin type of Aether that actually causes Relativity. In GR mass actually increases the distance between the Aether spin particles causing clocks to reduce their tick rate while c remains constant. With the space increasing volume mass increases volume to match the frames tick rate.  SR has the equivalence in a visual increase in the measuring stick. While vector velocity matches the measurement to the tick rate of the frames clock.

I don't agree with the idea of spin particles moving in relation to each other.

My idea is that vacuum has the permeability and permittivity properties which are constant everywhere, thus c is constant in absolute space. We can think of vacuum as made of some infinitesimal points in absolute space that poses these values if you want. But these points remain fixed in relation to each other because if they don't, we don't get the relativistic effects using my particle model.

The relationship between c, permittivity and permeability is the first clue, everything is electromagnetic excitations.
The clue that relativity is wrong is in the OAM  experiments which manage to slow down light. This means that particles that move slower that c, do that because of the same effect.

[nilak (OP)]

I have a new idea about the source of Black energy. It is the EM radiation but not necessarily low spectrum. It can be a classical superposition of waves that cancel each other. The amplitude cancel, but he energy conserves and the waves still travel at c.
These waves continue to be bent by gravity or more precisely to manifest gravitational effects (like Gravito-magnetism).

[GoC]

I don't agree with the idea of spin particles moving in relation to each other.

My idea is that vacuum has the permeability and permittivity properties
which are constant everywhere, thus c is constant in absolute space.

Physics could care less weather we agree or not. Your statement is circular reasoning.
This follows religion and not real science. Why is space permeability constant? You are
just making the case for Einstein's light being constant postulate. No cause for it being constant.
It is the cause for which we are striving. Quantum mechanics if not spin for electron motion
why do the electrons move? This is what needs explaining. Why is the photon constant is
not explained by saying it has constant permeability.

[nilak (OP)]

I don't agree with the idea of spin particles moving in relation to each other.

My idea is that vacuum has the permeability and permittivity properties
which are constant everywhere, thus c is constant in absolute space.

Physics could care less weather we agree or not. Your statement is circular reasoning.
This follows religion and not real science. Why is space permeability constant? You are
just making the case for Einstein's light being constant postulate. No cause for it being constant.
It is the cause for which we are striving. Quantum mechanics if not spin for electron motion
why do the electrons move? This is what needs explaining. Why is the photon constant is
not explained by saying it has constant permeability.

A constant permittivity/permeability perfectly explains the relativistic experimental data. However it is possible that these properties are not constant, but there is no evidence of speed of light higher or slower in vacuum.
About the waves, the secret is you can't cancel two waves travelling in the same direction. That would be equivalent to no EM emission at all. It is possible to cancel the electric field amplitudes (excitations) of two opposite beams. However in this case, the magnetic field amplitudes add up and energy is conserved. I think that in that portion of space where the waves E field cancel, the wave might become undetectable.

[GoC]

A constant permittivity/permeability

The reason for this is what needs explaining. Explanation by postulate fails to determine which if any theory is correct.
 Your  permittivity/permeability is no different from relativity's light being constant. The question becomes why is light
constant? The choices are space is a void or space is energy c. Main stream choses the void. This is illogical when we
test observations using light. The electron and photon being confounded in every frame follows geometry math for
distances traveled matching the electron cycle energy from c. c controls relativity which a void can never do. Logic is
 needed to be followed not ignored. Einstein correctly predicted a medium (Aether type) could not have vector speed.
This would disavow light speed being the same in all directions. This leaves two choices, the void or spin micro mass particles.
 A void is not logical when changes to velocity through materials speed back up in a vacuum. Entropy rules kinetic energy of
mass. c might be winding down but the ratio reaction rate between frames would remain. Geometry rules between frames.
 c is most likely dark (micro mass) mass spin energy by logic over coincidence.

You use the term EM without visualizing a physical matrix. Your particle wave tail concept of one particle which by relativity
cannot travel at the SoL using relativity math is more likely a wave packet on dark mass energy. Using the term EM without
 a proper description of what EM is an exercise in futility. We cannot vote on proper physics for science. Logic has to rule
observations. Math without a physical frame work follows relativity but lead us to wrong conclusions. Contraction being one
of the concepts that are misrepresented.

[nilak (OP)]

Yes, GoC, I agree.
Einstein intuition was good when he said there is no defitite motion of matter because that is what experiments were showing. However, I think there must be an aether or a physical matrix if you want, which can be called Electromagnetic Aether. This Aether can be thought at rest in the defined Absolute frame. But, more precisely, there is no definite state of motion of this aether, you can't attribute a state of motion to it.
The theory of aether was rejected because they didn't realize everything is electromagnetic and thought light and matter are fundamentally  different. You can build anything using electromagnetic fields.

Happy new year ! Best wishes and see you in 2017 !

[GoC]

Einstein intuition was good when he said there is no defitite motion of matter because that is what experiments were showing.
 However, I think there must be an aether or a physical matrix if you want, which can be called Electromagnetic Aether.

We went down the same path and came out with different understandings. The Aether style path is definitely necessary.
Einstein understood there could be no vector speed with a matrix. That would be inconsistent with light speed. Particle spin
of the Aether actually mechanically serves relativity observations. Electromagnetic Aether is not explained. Electro is not part
 of the spectrum while magnetic is the spin state of the spectrum.  Photon is the propagated screw particle packet wave through
space.

I hope the new year fills you with enjoyment.