Strange

There is no such thing as negative energy, so your question doesn't make much sense. What do you mean by things with a negative value? Not significantly. The Sun is very splightly flattened because of its spin. This might make a minute difference to the amount of radiation in different directions.

What do you mean by "positive"? Energy is always a positive value (or zero). Light is a form of energy. This is the main energy the sun radiates. This does not mean that the sun is positive.

I assumed when you asked if the sun was positive, you meant electrical charge. The sun is electrically neutral. It emits energy. This is just energy, not "positive energy" (there is no such thing as negative energy).

Ouagadougou

And if it is array data in C, then bobes may be accidentally printing the address of a variable instead of the content. Or it could be an uninitialised variable. Or a local variable being accessed out of scope so it has been overwritten. Or ...

The same is true for all quantum fields and particles. That is a crude and hugely inaccurate analogy. Where does symmetry breaking appear in your understanding? No. Do you begin to see the problem? You have no idea and yet you think you can make useful contributions to science. Sorry, it isn't that simple. If this happened, it would just be the latest in along line of observations to be explained. Nothing new. For example, the neutorino was hypothesized because it was found that beta decay did not conserve momentum and energy. Various hypotheses were put forward (someone even suggested that maybe conservation laws were only statistically true and did not apply to every reaction - so much for scientists not being imaginative and not thinking outside the box). The simplest was the existence of a new particle. Later detected. So, even if this effect is real, and even if it requires new physics, it doesn't necessarily falsify any current physics (and certainly not all current physics as you seem to imply).

If you were to make a tunnel through the center of the Earth, the graviational pull would descrease until it became zero at the center. But the gravitational potential would (I think) increase so a clock at the center would run slower than one at the surface.

It might have been a way of describing the constant speed of light. Or something about coherent light. Or... I'm not sure really.

I see absolutely no reason to belive that. As you don't understand the Higgs mechanism, for example, any claims you make about the Higgs field being relevant are just random speculation. More nonsense.

Basically, yes. But I think intrinsic curvature is only possible in 3 dimensions and above. A 2D analogy (very crude) is the 3D graphics technique of bump mapping. This takes a 2D surface and distorts the "surface normals" (the vectors that point directly away from the surface). This affects things like lighting and makes the surface appear curved, even though it is still flat.

I'm not dodging the issue at all. You asked me what explanation I had, I gave you one. You don't like it? <shrug> Not my problem. If it is true, then it can either be explained by current theory or it needs new theory. Of course, either approach would require (depend on) mathematics. The effect would have to be measured and quantified (in case you miss the point: how do you do that without mathematics?) New hypotheses would have to be developed and tested. This obviously requires the "instrument between the ears"; science is a highly creative discipline that depends on imagination. This is so obvious, I'm not sure it even needs stating. But you seem hung up on it, so there it is. However to test these hypotheses, they would need to make qauntitative (there it is again) predictions c=that can be compared with measurements (begin to get the idea yet?) You may think you do. I think all you have is meaningless waffle made up of a few scientific sounding words stirred together at random. If I am wrong, then please use your model to caluclate the strength of the effect under one or more scenarios so we can find out if your predictions turn out to be correct.

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. The Higgs mechanism is extremely complex and cannot be understood by means of analogies and verbal logic. If you think it can, then you are fooling yourself. Any conclusions you reach by this method are worthless. Science has encountered black swans before and survived. Again, this is complete nonsense. Modern science cannot be done without mathematics. How do we even know that this device might work? Because they have measured and quantified the thrust. We may have survied for millennia without mathematics but we were not doing science. And isn't science. If, for example, someone had guessed that expansion of the universe was accelerating, then they would deserve (and would get) zero credit when they turned out to be right. Currently, experimental error seems most plausible. At least it is a hypothesis based on something we know exists. It will be interesting to see what further and better experiments show. Nonsense. It is quite possible to show that an argument is wrong, without having an alternative hypothesis. You need to expl;ain what that means, I'm afraid. Do you mean, can we generate entengled photons with a known spin? No, because if we know what the spin is, they are not entengled.

You have just defined it. What further definition are you looking for?

I agree. What is "SM"? And I don't know that most scientists assume there is a multi-verse. Some are pretty vocally opposed to it. What does it mean to "speed up in the Higgs field"? You seem to be saying that the Higgs field can be used as an absolute frame of reference. Why pick on the Higgs field? Why not the electromagnetic field, the electron field or ... I assume you have no mathematics behind this so it is just word salad, as far as I can see. If you have a model, you should be able to quantify this effect. Can you? Why do you think we can't do this now?

The speed of light being constant is a "local" thing. You will always measure the speed of light locally to be c. Zarg the Magnificent in another galaxy will also measure the speed of light locally to be c. But you are right, you may not agree on the distances or times involved and therefore will each may say the other's speed of light is different. (I think. This is a complex area and attempting to apply "common sense logic" will almost certainly get you the wrong result.)

It could still mean anything at all. Or nothing.

Is there such an idea? There have been attempts to measure the effect of the "quantum foam" on light from distant sources. I can't find any references now, but I think the results have been negative so far.

Without knowing more about what you are doing (you don't even say what language you are using) it is impossible to say. Can you post a simple example?

So that makes quantum field theory an "aether theory" by your definition. Which makes the term "aether theory" completely meaningless. I am not sure why you keep using the word asn you have moved so far away from the original meaning. It can only be because you think the word has some magic power of its own.

I am curious what this is supposed to mean. Could you explain it?

It is an exact solution the EFE. And its predictions appear to be confirmed by evidence. So what is your source for this claim?

No You may be thinking of Faraday. No No. No.

Nope. The FLRW solution to the Einstein Field Equations requires that space expands or contracts (unless the density is balanced just-so).

You can think of it that way but it is important to note that the description of the curvature of 4D spacetime in GR does not require a higher dimension for the curvature to "happen in". It is "intrinsic curvature", which can be a tricky concept to get your head round....

That is horribly confused and garbled. Eisntein included the cosmological constant because the equations of GR show that the universe should expand or contract (depending on density) and, at the time, the universe was assumed to be static. When it was found that the universe was expanding, the comsological constant was removed. It was later reinstated to account for accelerating expansion. The comsological constant is an energy density (hence the term "dark energy") and has a positive pressure. None of this has anything to do with gravity (other than both are described by GR). And certainly not any magical push gravity. Gravity is due to the local curvature of spacetime due to the presence of mass (no pushing involved). Expansion is what happens with a homogenous mass distribution (which is approximately true on very large scales). No pushing is required for expansion.