[jeffreyH (OP)]

That article makes the mistake of thinking that spacetime is the medium for the propagation of EM waves when in fact EM waves require no medium. Gravitational waves uses spacetime as a medium but that's about it.

Maybe gravitation also requires no medium. I don't think it does.

Spacetime is the medium since its spacetime itself that is disturbed by the propagation of a gravitational wave.

You said yourself that electromagnetic waves need no medium. Electromagnetic waves travel through invariant Planck dimensions at all times. They cannot be invariant for light and variant for mass under momentum. That is a paradox.

[yor_on]

No, 'c' is 'c'. It's a distance and a time giving us a speed, defined locally. And it's 'plastic', meaning that it will give the same speed, no matter your own velocity, as defined relative lights blueshift. And whatever 'contraction' you find at your relativistic speed won't matter either, for such a measurement. As for a 'universal frame', I guess that you by that would mean what I refer to as a 'global' definition of a universe, aka a 'container' of sorts. In relativity you have all sorts of frames, but you don't have a 'universal', as far as I know? The closest I would expect us to get to that conception should be using Lorentz transformations. The idea of a 'common container' comes from our archetypes I would say, it is what we see when we look out at the world and the universe, each one of us.

[Pmb]

You said yourself that electromagnetic waves need no medium.

That's correct.

Electromagnetic waves travel through invariant Planck dimensions at all times.

What the hell are " invariant Planck dimensions"?

They cannot be invariant for light and variant for mass under momentum.

What are you talking about when you say "They"? Are you referring to EM waves? What do you mean by them being invariant for light and variant for mass under momentum? Again, you're not making much sense.

The speed of light is invariant. The wave itself is not. And it has nothing to do with the "variant for mass under momentum" which is a very unclear term in itself - again. Please stop taking very simple things and making them sound complex. I'm begging you to stop. It works against you by making it hard for everyone who's following to understand what you're trying to say. If you're doing it to "sound/look more intelligent" then that's a very bad reason for using strange language.

I've asked you this many many many times in the past and I've grown weary of asking. From now on if it's not clear to begin with then I won't even ask for you to rewrite it again for clarity since by now you should know better and start by making it clear from the start. I hope I don't come off like a jerk but I'm tired of this.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I bumped this thread to mention the fact that I am now convinced that the density of mass-energy has no influence on gravitational field strength at all. I have found a constant value in Newtons for any mass-energy value compressed to its Schwarzschild radius. This is irrespective of density and relates only to the mass and the radius. This also means that the singularity remains valid and is not what I had hoped to find. It also indicates no mass loss through a brane.

This value in Newtons must also relate directly to c.