I'm all for living as long as possible just to see what sort of amazing things the future will bring.
It's a matter of usage and context - To clarify: "Electrogravitics is claimed to be an unconventional type of effect or anti-gravity force created by an electric field's effect on a mass. The name was coined in the 1920s by the discoverer of the effect, Thomas Townsend Brown, who spent most of his life trying to develop it and sell it as a propulsion system. Through Brown's promotion of the idea it was researched for a short while by aerospace companies in the 1950s. Since apparatus based on Browns' ideas have often yielded varying and highly controversial results when tested within controlled vacuum conditions, the effect observed has often been attributed to the ion drift or ion wind effect instead of anti-gravity." - Wikipedia
It depends on what physicists you're talking about and what theory they're talking about, and there are more than one of both.
You seem to be conflating the issue of what gravity is with the way it's measured and described: Britannica - Gravity, also called gravitation, in mechanics, the universal force of attraction acting between all matter. It is by far the weakest known force in nature and thus plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter ... Gravity is measured by the acceleration that it gives to freely falling objects ...
That's not the context of the word "concrete" my comment was made in. By it's very nature any analogy isn't the thing itself, and in this case ( GEM ) is an analogy between gravitation and EM. However we still don't know what imparts gravity or any of the fundamental forces of nature onto nature. They simply exist and are associated with scientific models that describe ( not to be confused with explain ) the behavior of measurable things like bodies in space which are concrete. In other words a planet is something concrete. Gravity is associated with planets, but the two are distinctly different concepts.
By "attempt", I mean that there are inconsistencies in the gravito-electromagnetic analogy and that while the analogy is interesting, believing it to be perfect would seem to be an overestimation, while believing it to be unremarkable would be underestimating it. Here's a reference - http://cds.cern.ch/record/681993/files/0311024.pdf
While your follow-up is accurate, I think the term "mixed-up" isn't. It's more likely that the interpretation of what is said doesn't fit with the assumptions made in the discussion. In other words, it seems to me that the objections you make and attribute to the other person being wrong, stating something untrue, or being misinformed, may not have anything to do with those reasons, but are due to differing perspectives on the same issue, each of which may be valid within their own right, but seemingly incongrunent with each other. The challenge then isn't to prove either person is wrong or right or misinformed, but to bridge the conceptual gaps.
The discussion about the concept of spacetime is another example of what I was just saying above.
There you go again. I simply said that the discovery is controversial. I didn't specify exactly how it's controversial because I don't have time to write pages and pages of logical analysis on the reasons along with all the related citations, but essentially it boils down to what appears to be a lot of fudging by the scientists who claim the Higgs has been found. By fudging, I mean that it wasn't actually "detected". Rather it's been "inferred", mainly by statistical analysis of something presumed to be the decay of the Higgs Boson into bottom quarks, and that the variables for defining the Higgs Boson, particularly its mass aren't anything close to what has actually been measured. Therefore because the results of experiments don't match the predictions, what justifies the assumption that what was predicted has actually been found? This is a perfectly valid question. Here are some links that might help:
- https://wwwf.imperial.ac.uk/~dvandyk/Research/14-reviews-higgs.pdf
- The 7 biggest unanswered questions in physics
- The incredible lightness of the Higgs | CERN
None of these articles appear to be by "cranks" and IMO it's perfectly reasonable given the situation to agree with others about the controversy over the issue. Simply writing it off with epithets isn't the kind of discussion that gets us anywhere. So maybe rather than suggesting I stop talking about it, you might try another approach.
