1

New Theories / Re: how gravity works

« on: 05/02/2019 23:26:14 »

I regret using the term quarks to describe the smallest particles of matter. Quackery.

What word would u now use?

Anyhow u talk of density of spacetime.
Is density of ST a mainstream Einsteinian thing, or do u think that it is slightly heretical?

I have heard of the bending of ST.  I have heard of the fabric of ST. But can ST stretch?  Can ST compress?  Can ST shear?  Can ST distort? Can ST change density?
What do u think?
 
If we bend something it stretches on say top, & it compresses at bottom, & suffers a shearing in other directions. The density changes in some places, in some directions.  If we bend ST then i wonder whether we get a similar stretching compression shear etc, ie as for when we bend a something?

Or praps if we bend ST we get a change of shape but no stretching compression shear etc.
What do u think is the mainstream Einsteinian view or views?

I wonder whether a LIGO GW is made up of lots of changing bendings together with associated stretchings & bendings. Or whether a GW is made up of lots of stretchings & compressings with no bending.

If your quarks-particles are made of density of ST, then i think what we have is that density of ST tells ST how to bend, & the bending of ST tells ST how to densify.
Which do u think came first?

2

New Theories / The Big Bang is dead -- RIP.

« on: 03/02/2019 11:12:55 »

Prof Pierre-Marie Robitaille -- re P Herouni's antenna & the  Death of the Big Bang.

3

New Theories / Re: Another Model of Gravity

« on: 03/02/2019 04:50:54 »

A few questions to start with …

For example in aether theory aether is annihilated in Earth & the acceleration of the inflow to replace the lost aether drags man towards Earth, …

Is this a case of the inflow of aether into the earth pushing things down toward the earth? Isn’t the man also annihilating aether from his feet up, and where is that aether coming from?  Yes its the acceleration of aether into Earth that drags the man, the velocity of the inflow has no effect.  And yes the man too has an inflow, hencely the gross effect is some kind of mysterious addition (which i don’t understand)(its more complicated than one might think).

Earthly inflow streamlines converging in 3D giving a 1/RR in the equation for that dragging force, which we call gravitational force, & an opposite force acts on the Earth.

Just a question here, … RR stands for radius squared, correct? If we are talking volume instead of area, would the right equation be for volume? Equation for the volume of a sphere: https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Volume-of-a-Sphere
V = 4/3 Pi r^3
I don’t think that the vol equation helps.  On the other hand i don’t actually say how i get to that 1/RR relationship re force.  I intentionally gloss over that, because it is more complicated than it looks.  Ranzan attempts a derivation for 1/RR & he has to resort to giving the aether a contractile nature, ie his aether self-destructs in mid-air so to speak, before it even gets to any mass, to get the needed additional acceleration to arrive at the known 1/RR relationship.   

And the reciprocal of that process gives inertia, ie if u accelerate a man the acceleration drags aether, &  the aether resists, thusly we need a force, which we call inertial force, & the accelerator requires an equal & opposite force dragging aether the other way.  Mass is the property of needing an inertial force for acceleration.

So mass is a property of the need for inertial force for acceleration, to offset the drag that the aether resists when you accelerate? Does an object have mass if it is not being accelerated?
Yes well put.  And an interesting question.  Re gravi-mass, this exists all the time, because mass is continuously annihilating aether.   
Re inert-mass, this too exists all the time, because all objects are being accelerated all the time (ie they are in freefall all the time), unless the object happens to be (very briefly) at a location in space where the aetherwind has no acceleration (lots of free but no fall).     

An object with a uniform velocity throo the aether doesnt suffer any nett aether drag force, except that all massive particles in that object annihilate aether & result in an aether inflow which has no effect on the object's velocity.

It sounds a little like the explanation I would expect for an object “at rest”. How is uniform velocity different from being at rest, and what is the difference in aether annihilation and aether drag?
Yes velocity (ie size of aetherwind) makes no difference.  But who knows, there might be a small difference, eg if a rest. 
It seems to me that there is no annihilation associated with inertial drag.  And praps no slippage.  But it would be easy to cater for a theory that did say there was a little annihilation going on in lots of places for lots of reasons, & a little slippage.  In fact i like the idea of slippage, i would like to see a slippage rate of 50% because this would explain 1.75 arcsec of bending at the Sun's limb.     

As aether has no mass it cannot itself give a force, what it does is it transfers drag force to nearby massive bodies, the transfer having a speed of at least 20 billion c, & the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation.

Why such extreme velocities? How are those extreme velocities activated?
Van Flandern & i think LaPlace worked that out based on the fact that any slower & we would see strange things happening to orbits.  The velocities involve a small amount of aether briefly moving at that hi velocity whilst the actual flow of the bulk of the aether might be sitting still or moving at no more than  say  c/600.  It’s a bit like sound waves, the wave moves at Mach1, & bits of air briefly move at Mach1,  whilst the bulk of the air might be just sitting still.
You mention the transfer being in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation, and I don’t understand how that would occur?
Aether having no mass can merely transfer force etc from object to object.  This must involve a 3D tension in the aether, needing lots of surrounding mass in every direction to be fully efficient.  As an object is say attracted to say Earth & as the object moves closer  the tension gradually increases & this transfers to the source, a continuous back & forth process, a reverberation if u like.  Re the Earth & the Sun the reverberation would go back & forth to & from the Sun at least 20 billion times per second.     
I do see your reference to a shock-front or pulse or wave, and that sounds a little familiar to my idea of wave action; what would you say is waving in that case?
The aether is the equivalent of the air in relation to sound waves.       

The full potential gravitational mass or inertial mass of an object is only attained if there is other significant surrounding mass in every direction, bearing in mind that aetheric reverberation can reach the Sun & then return to Earth at least 20 million times per second.  Attaining full gravitational mass (or if u like attaining the full effect of gravitational mass) is really only an issue in relation to large objects (eg stars) on a galactic scale (ie it depends on the proximity of surrounding galaxies).

I don’t see why you are distinguishing between very large object on a galactic scale.  Why wouldn’t there be this effect at smaller scales?
.This effect happens equally at all scales.  But it must show up very well at large scales.  For example inside the Milky Way the average distance tween stars might be say 10 lightyears measured radially, but the average distance measured axially square to the disc might be 100 lightyears.  Here i am imagining a sphere neatly covering the Milky Way, & the sphere defining the limit of the geometry for average distance purposes.  Anyhow the dearth of mass axially must result in a loss of efficiency in the tension & reverberation axially, meaning that a spiral galaxy like the Milky Way cant accord with Newton's equation for gravitational attraction.  But Einsteinians wont let go of Newton & hencely have to invent Dark Matter.   
I’ll just mention those questions, and maybe your answers will clear a few things up for me so I can work my way further through your post.Actually my answers have cleverly avoided a few complications that i struggle with but wont get into for now.     

4

New Theories / Re: Could solar cycle be dominated by the barycenters of the Solar System?

« on: 30/01/2019 21:23:59 »

There might be a centrifuging of aether cause of sunspots.

Absolutely! The centrifuging of aether that causes sunspots to spawn, is manifested by resonated vortical effects to form the voids in the photosphere as sunspots.

From the UVS perspective, the actual SSB is the primary aetheric void of aether in the Solar System, the significant planetary barycenters of the gas giants, are the secondary aetheric voids of aether that are harmonically formed by the main aetheric void.

The vortically condensed aetheric medium, coalesced to form as the photosphere of the Sun, and sunpots are mainly impelled to form around solar jets, which are modulated by the polar vortex of the photosphere. In this sense, a sunspot is a harmonica aetheric void, which is vortically formed.

My centrifuging of aether is based on an equivalence of gravitational mass & inertial mass.  The acceleration of aether inflow into mass (ie as u get closer), which accelerates objects (gravity g), is in a way equivalent (but mirror-image wise) to when a static object is made to accelerate giving inertia-g. Logically a spinning object must suck aether inwards towards the spin-axis, & likewise an orbiting object must suck aether inwards towards the axis of orbit.  In both cases the aether is then spat out axially.  At conjunction the centrifugal-g's can be additive & thusly affect the gross-g on & in the Sun. Somehow creating sunspots.

Prof Robitaille has some youtube footage on his sky scholar site where he explains the makeup & creation of sunspots, but he doesnt mention aether or the giants. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sky+scholar

Prof Reg Cahill has an amazing 2014 paper where he mentions solar flares & sunspots & ejections in relation to measured turbulence in the aetherwind (Cahill calls it dynamic space) blowing south to north throo the Sun at 500 kmps, the turbulence (which he likens to a kind of GW) giving a 6 day warning for flares, & he also mentions a link to global warming.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2014/PP-39-10.PDF

5

New Theories / Re: Another Model of Gravity

« on: 25/01/2019 18:52:36 »

The best explanation for the varying speeds of light in medium & in vacuum (& for refraction, & bending of light) is my own.  They are due to photaeno drag (nowadays i tend to call it photaeno drag to distinguish it from the silly non-existent virtual particle the photaeno of the standard model). Search & i think u will find my more detailed explanation for photaeno drag.

I found this: photaeno drag ............  of vibration or spin or swirl of the aether. Have you explained what aether is? Is it particulate? How do you describe it?

If it exists in the ISU, it is contained in the tiny oscillations at the tiniest level of action, where the lowest order of gravitation waves oscillate in the background that fills all space, just waiting for a meaningful gravitational (or light) waves to enter the local oscillating background; the oscillations then assist in the advance of those more meaningful waves through the oscillating background.

Below is an image of a quiet but oscillating patch of foundational wave energy background that acts to advance and assist the propagation of meaningful light and gravity waves through space.

When characterizing the Aether within the ISU model, it is right there in the space occupied by those tiny oscillations, remembering that in the ISU, there is a hint of mass at the convergence of each gravitational wave, and there in the quiet oscillations of the oscillating foundational background is where the tiniest hints of mass are constantly forming momentarily, and then expanding spherically as third waves to complete an oscillation, and as the new third wave expands, it is continually forming more tiny hints of mass around the expanding spherical surface.

All of those little circles in the image are supposed to represent the “third wave” action, meaning that each circle can be backtracked to a point of convergence depicted where two or more circles in the image intersect, and the image of all of those tiny circles has numerous wave convergences at points on the surface where the third waves expand spherically. Picture a tiny, momentary “spot” (hint of mass) at each of the convergences around each depicted sphere.

I would ask you, if I added tiny spots at each convergence in the following image, and then removed the circle lines which connect each point of convergence among the oscillating gravitational waves, could the sum of all of those tiny momentary spots that I call hints of mass equate to aether? Edit: I might add that the aether "spots" would all appear to be flashing into and out of existence all of the time, everywhere, filling all space, as the "unseen oscillating gravitational wave action" takes place.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg


Below is a link to an image that shows a meaningful wave being advanced through a patch of the oscillating wave energy background. The oscillations would equate to your aether, while the darker regions could equate to a meaningful gravitational wave emitted from a particle with mass in the ISU model.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_54_25.jpeg

Any comments so far, before I address the concept of tornadic swirls of the aether?

My aether is similar to your aether, my aether is a process, it is some sort of excitation of the fundamental praether, thusly being a process it can be annihilated, whereas the annihilation of praether itself, ie the annihilation of a thing, would be harder to swallow.  And for sure one could make a sensible model where aether flashes in & out of existence.
I suppose that the fundamental quantum or subquantum fluid or whatever has had lots of names throo history -- the fabric of spacetime -- strings -- vacuum energy -- dynamic space -- absolute frame -- quantum foam -- there are many terms that are an aether.

I notice that u believe that light is a wave. I believe that light is made of photons, & that the photon is the elementary particle that makes electrons & quarks etc (which are usually called elementary particles).

It looks to me that praps u believe that mass is a process & a thing-thing, whereas i believe that every"thing" (other than praether) is a process.
How does your mass work, & how does your inertia work, & are your mass & inertia related? 

6

New Theories / Re: Another Model of Gravity

« on: 22/01/2019 19:39:46 »

I would call it the gravitational wave energy density effect. A strong gravitational signal from a distant massive event travels through space from the event to the LIGO apparatus. The LIGO apparatus lasers that point down each arm detect infinitesimal differences in round trip time light travel, right?
Since the arms are positioned at a 90º angle, a gravity wave will have a slightly different effect along each arm, making the light travel time down and back on each arm measurably different, which is a condition that sets off the LIGO alarm.
If there is some design flaw, possibly harmonics from their calibration signals, if there is length contraction or time dilation, or wave energy density factors at play, the LIGO device alarm will register the event of the passing of a very high energy gravitational wave, right?
My model predicts that the elevated gravitational wave energy density arriving from the direction of the massive distant event, as the gravitational waves from that event pass through the space occupied by the LIGO detectors, will increase the gravitational wave energy density to a slightly different level along each perpendicularly positioned arm, and that increase in density will affect the speed of light down each arm to a slightly different degree, and that difference in laser light return time between each arm will set off the LIGO alarm to indicate the detection of the gravitational wave. That is the ISU gravitational wave energy density explanation for the activation of the LIGO alarm.
Of the various possibilities, it is a logical explanation, according to the ISU model . What do you think?

Additionally, the model also predicts the cause of the chirping from an event that is caused by the in-swirling death spiral of two blackholes.
So now all I need to do is explain what it is that waves, and waves at a slightly different frequency down each arm, to be able to explain how an observed difference in gravitational wave energy density along each arm will change the velocity of light (and gravitational waves) through the local space. Right?
Are you up to reading about my explanation for how the change in gravitational wave energy density caused by the passing gravitational wave will cause something to wave, and explain what is waving, according to my model, so you can falsify  it, lol, while I contemplate Van Flandern? OK?

I am ok with (weak) Newtonian quadrupolar GWs from binaries in general but not ok with their silly GR kind of silly super GWs from binaries. And i am potentially ok with thinking of density of gravity or GWs. But waves nonetheless (& density, etc) have to be in relation to a medium.

LIGO is complicated. I look at it as being primarily a measure of distance in each arm.  But it can involve a change in c in each arm, or wave length, or a difference in local ticking even (but i will ignore these).  LIGO is a house of cards with postulates written on them, one of the weakest is the card that has the postulate that a GW can change the distance tween two hanging mirrors whilst at the same time the length of the laser is not changed.  This card sits on a card that says that if the length of the laser is constant then the wave lengths of the emitted light is constant.  This card sits on a card that says that the laser is a solid formed by electrostatic & electrodynamic forces, & that these es-ed forces in solids are stronger than the GW force that is trying to change the length of the laser. 

Yes, LIGO needs the notion that a GW force in a solid is weaker than an es-ed force.  An adhoc idea with no reasonable logic behind it. They could just as easily say that the GW force is weaker, or that they are exactly equal. Did they make the laser out of stiffer glass to make sure. Nope, no mention.

In addition even if the GW force is stronger & wins then that win cannot be total, the GW must affect the length of the solid (glass?) laser a little or a lot, but no mention of any such thing. Here they placed a wooden block instead of a card & hoped that no one would notice.

And no mention that any such effect on length of laser must give a ringing of the laser, ie a harmonic change in length.  After all the first GW detectors were built on that principle, they were big blocks of metal that would ring (RINGOS)(& ring they did)(or so they said).  But no mention of any such ringing side effect re the length of the laser in LIGO. Another wooden block here instead of a card. In fact LIGO is based on the postulate that such ringing is not possible. 

Here i have looked at one little room of their house of cards (& wooden blocks). There are lots of other rooms just as dangerous. But i have mentioned a room not mentioned by anyone else, no other building inspector has opened that door (probly no other inspector even knows about that door). 

When they claimed that their RINGO rung they did not get a Nobel, but when they claimed that their LIGO did not ring they got a Nobel.  Go figure.

7

New Theories / Re: Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?

« on: 30/10/2018 11:21:27 »

This is a good question. I do note though that Einstein wasn't entirely familiar with the idea of quantum entanglement, and highly disputed its proposition. The idea, Q-E, suggests that light is only ultimately half expressed in a grand consideration of relativity, which would require a halving of calculated arcsec perhaps?

I found say 5 articles re Einsteinian bending that showed that a proper Einsteinian method gives only 0.87 arcsec, or less. But i am going to vizit my own calculations of 2017 & early 2018 & i will report back.

8

New Theories / Re: Can scientific beliefs be compared to religous dogma?

« on: 22/10/2018 05:42:44 »

The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons & confined-photons are a process of the aether, so in a sense there is interaction.

I totally agree with this: The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons.Have tell me how you come to this proposition?

Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology -- J G Williamson & M B van der Mark -- 1997.
A new theory of light and matter -- J G Williamson -- 2014.
On the nature of the photon and the electron -- J G Williamson -- 2015?
The toroidal topology of the electron -- Miles Mathis --2012.
Restoring the physical meaning of energy -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2013.
The fundamental process of energy -- part 1 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.
The fundamental process of energy -- part 2 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.
A model of the electron -- R Wayte -- 2010.

If u go throo the process of crunching the numbers u will find that nLeT is simpler than SR-GR.

Interesting! Can you show?

(1) In aether theory u firstly calculate the aetherwind Vawo blowing throo observer O, & (2) stick Vawo into the equation for Lorentz gamma to give u the gamma (gamma(O)) that applies to the ticking rate for O's clock. (3) If u divide the apparent ticking rate of clock O by gamma(O) then that would give u the absolute ticking rate for clock O in the absolute reference frame (where the aetherwind Vaw is zero kmps), but there is no need to do (3), just saying.
In (1) u (a) use the known background aetherwind on Earth Vbgaw, which is say 500 kmps south to north say 20 deg off Earth's axis, Right Ascension 4.5 hr. And (b) u correct for Earth's spin (Vspin say 0.4 kmps) at your latitude (spin correction changes during 24 hrs)(due to the 20 deg), & (c) u correct for Earth's orbit (Vorbit say 30 kmps)(this correction changes during 24 hrs & during 365 days) .
(4) And u already know the apparent ticking rate of clock O.

Then to calculate the expected ticking rate of your clock (or an identical clock) for when it will be sitting in a satellite u calculate (1) for the satellite, ie its expected aetherwind (Vaws), & (2) stick Vaws into gamma to give gamma(S) for the satellite clock.

(5) The ratio of gamma(O) to gamma(S) is the ratio of the ticking rates.
(6) The main problem being that the aetherwind will be changing for both O & S during every second of the day & year.

In SR-GR u simply (1) calculate the relative velocity tween O & S & (2) stick that into Einstein's equation for gamma (this equation looks identical to Lorentz's, but it aint) to give gamma(O-S), which is the ratio of the ticking rates (no need for step (5)). However u will still need to continuously correct for the changing relative velocities of O & S similarly to (6).
So, SR-GR looks simpler than the aether theory model. But wait. SR-GR give bad numbers. Einsteinians have to resort to a menu of fudges to try to explain. Here they invoke a faux-Sagnac correction. So, u now have to go throo steps (7 8 9) or something, to work out a bogus faux-Sagnac correction. I aint gonna bother. Good luck with that.

One slight possible problem. I suspect that light does indeed slow near mass (in which case Einstein was right), altho i suspect that the slowing is probly a half of what Einstein said (in which case Einstein was half right)(due to a lucky guess of sorts)(but i think deserves credit anyhow)(if slowing is found to be true).
Anyhow i dont know what an aetheric calculation might look like -- i dont think that it will be much like the GR correction for space (radial length contraction) nor time (ticking dilation) -- i think that if ever it raises its ugly head the model & its equations will look nothing like gamma.
And i haven't included any such slowing correction in the above SR-GR calcs (but i did use gamma once)(praps i should have used it twice).

9

New Theories / Re: Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 21/10/2018 03:03:45 »

Any one keen to explore a UVS topic on "The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space"?
And let me know why you think the scientific method is not intrinsically flawed?

The bottom line is that all science (talking about atom stuff & cosmic stuff here) is flawed because Einsteinians turn kids into Einsteinians whilst censoring anti-Einsteinians.  If i were in charge of a big science project i would have a B-team whose job was to identify all of the shortcomings of the A-team's theory & experiment & data-crunching. The use of double-blind peer review is good, but u need peer review before & during as well as after, u need a B-team.

Re cosmic expansion, the science is rubbish. In the first instance it relies on there being a bigbang. No bigbang then no cosmic expansion. Below i mention four different science facts that each kill cosmic expansion on their own.
(1) Crothers has an article showing that the bigbang is rubbish.
(2) Cahill has an article showing that the latest (Nobel) results dont show expansion.
(3) Ranzan has an article explaining the real cause of redshift. 
(4) Arp has pointed out severe inconsistencies in the measured redshift of certain stars & galaxies.

10

New Theories / Re: Can scientific beliefs be compared to religous dogma?

« on: 19/10/2018 08:30:37 »

Yes u need  to watch out for fake evidence.

Such as?

There are instances where aetherists have gotten access to data which was contrary to the published results. The main problem being lack of access (Shapiro's venus radar measurements is one such). Sometimes the published results when looked at with a critical eye reveal fudging or glossing. Off the top of my head some that i have read about are as follows.......   
LIGO gravitational waves (harmonics of the calibration signals)..
Hafele Keating -- raw data shows was cherry picked & fudged.
GPS -- trumpeted as confirming Einstein.
Hammar X -- sfarti makes fake comments saying it destroys aether (no it didnt).
Roberts -- hit job on Miller MMX.
Shankland -- hit job on Miller MMX.
BICEP2 -- CMB & gravity waves & bigbang rubbish.
COBE & WMAP stuff -- blackbody radiation too good to be true.
Shapiro Delay -- fudged.

11

New Theories / Re: Can scientific beliefs be compared to religous dogma?

« on: 19/10/2018 00:11:45 »

Yes, much of that muon etc stuff is over my head, however there is no such thing as time dilation it is ticking dilation, & that is sufficient to affect the ticking of a muon, hencely might affect lifetime etc -- i daresay that this kind of TD effect is common to every kind of relativity out there not just Einsteinian relativity (not forgetting that in SR & GR nothing is real)(i mean TD LC etc)(all is a clever math-trick).

It is indeed ticking dilation at play. You might like to check this out: "Time dilation reviewed with UVS".

Thanx for that link, i will read it & the others when i have time. A quick look showed a couple of problems.
(1)  I notice it refers to the MMX being null. No.

The MMX did returned null result. However, neither Albert Michelson nor Edward Morley had ever considered that their experiment had disproved the aether hypothesis; it merely had proven that the postulated static aether does not exist. It was a hatched job of the Einsteinians that have had obfuscated with the null hypothesis to claim that MMX had proven aether does not exist.

(2) It includes some wordage from wiki which as can be expected talks about time dilation instead of ticking dilation, wiki says..........."

Those two cited Wiki articles were used as the discussion headers for elaborating with its standard terminologies on the fallacious propositions of the Einsteinian time dilations.

(3) The ticking dilation with altitude is not necessarily due to gravitational potential.

IMO, it is due to centripetal acceleration that renders the gravitational potential; geodetic effect.

(4) The Hafele Keating experiment did not confirm gravitational time dilation nor did it confirm gravitational ticking dilation, there was no dilation of any sort, the numbers were cherry picked & fudged, i can give u links.

Please provide the links. Tks.

(5) GPS time corrections are only partly gravitational at best, they are at least partly due to the aetherwind (ie the anisotropy of the speed of light), & are not accurately predicted by GR (contrary to Einsteinian claims).

Any link to "GPS time corrections are not accurately predicted by GR"?  This is contrary to what I believe.

Relativity and Clocks -- Carroll O Alley.
Mentions Hafele & Keating & 4 or 5 similar experiments. Plus a number of hill-valley experiments.

A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE HAFELE-KEATING EXPERIMENT -- Domina Eberle Spencer.

Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything? -- A. G. Kelly PhD*

Critical Reflection on the  Hafele and Keating Experiment --    Witold Nawrot


Successful search for ether drift in a modified michelson morley experiment using the GPS -- Stephan J G Gift.

The GPS and the constant velocity of light -- Paul Marmet.

Light transmission and the sagnac effect on the rotating earth -- Stephan J G Gift.
Another test of the light speed invariance postulate -- Stephan J G Gift.

Rebuttal of arguments published in "studies in history and philosophy of modern physics" claiming that special relativity is "symmetric, physical and consistent" -- J N Percival.

In search of an ether drift -- Ronald R Hatch.
Relativity and GPS -- Ronald R Hatch.

The global positioning system and the lorentz transformation --   Robert J Buenker.

Does the GPS system rely upon Einstein's relativity? --   Barry Springer.

12

New Theories / Re: Can scientific beliefs be compared to religous dogma?

« on: 18/10/2018 13:38:40 »

Einstein's explanation using acceleration from GR doesnt work, even i can see that, i can show u if u want. But praps u agree -- your wordage is a bit ambiguous here.

There was ambiguity because two variations of ToR was insidioulsy involved for the relativistic solution. Nonetheless, the Einsteinian relativistic solution that invoked gravitational time dilation, could work for its pragmatic theory of truth. This of course is not the actuality.

Please let me clarify:

In an experiment at CERN, muons of velocity 0.9994c were found to have a lifetime 29.33 times the laboratory lifetime in the CERN Muon Storage Ring.

A moun particle at 0.994c, can be technically said to be 29.33 times younger than an at rest (non accelerating) moun particle in their passage of real time.

In this sense, the actuality is, matters can undergo physical transformation when accelerating; it is not time that has transformed.

The adulterated Einsteinian ToR that proposited time was dilated for the accelerated twin, does not refer to reality for its quantitative prediction. This therefore is bogus. And so any extrapolations from this Einsteinian ToR, would entail all sorts of myth.

p.s. Please forgive my earlier mistake. Should have specifically mentioned as the relativistic solution that invoked gravitational time dilation, instead of plainly stated it as a GR solution. 

Yes, much of that muon etc stuff is over my head, however there is no such thing as time dilation it is ticking dilation, & that is sufficient to affect the ticking of a muon, hencely might affect lifetime etc -- i daresay that this kind of TD effect is common to every kind of relativity out there not just Einsteinian relativity (not forgetting that in SR & GR nothing is real)(i mean TD LC etc)(all is a clever math-trick).
In addition i suspect that much of modern Einsteinian particle physics is a part of a circular argument, using Einstein's gamma etc to find new particles & prove Einstein's gamma.

13

New Theories / Re: Can scientific beliefs be compared to religous dogma?

« on: 18/10/2018 07:52:57 »

"Scientific belief" is an oxymoron. Science is the process of testing explanatory and predictive hypotheses. The essence of science  is unbelief, and the overall process tends to reduce the number of hypotheses required to explain or predict observations.

Religion is exactly the opposite: the uncritical accrual of untestable hypotheses (gods, angels,levels of spiritual existence...) with no demonstrable predictive value.

Yes i know that some of us steer clear of using the word belief, i myself am fussy with words, but i dont worry too much about saying i "believe" something.

Yes we accept the best looking hypothesis & postulates. Not forgetting that there are say 20 to 100 postulates for even the simplest experiments. Not forgetting that there are an infinite number of possible solutions that fit the results --  an infinite number of other solutions that are not solutions.

Yes every religion that i know of has a non-testable god.

14

New Theories / Re: Can scientific beliefs be compared to religous dogma?

« on: 17/10/2018 13:02:02 »

Einsteinism is a science cult & has given us a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research -- non-conforming scientists are squeezed out, lose their jobs, lose their funding, lose access to publishing in mainstream magazines. But the Einsteinian dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. Amen.

IMO, Einstein was also a victim of your so called "a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research".

Einstein actually advocated the existence of a physical aether, but he later capitulated under peer pressure, which turned his work into a cult science, and also twisted and turned the works of your aether heroes.

This article on "The UVS review on the GR concepts of gravity", is my collective views on Einstein actually was an advocate for the existence of a physical aether. 

Like yourself, I also hope the dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. But, let's set the target on the real culprits.

Very interesting. And thanx for  thems 3 articles of yours, i downloaded them, & will read them soon. Funny that -- an aether sinks SR -- but no SR then no GR.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the proof of relativity via gravitational lensing false?

« on: 13/10/2018 02:54:53 »

The gravitational bending-deflexion-lensing of starlight is a worry for us anti-Einsteinians. The bending of starlight due to gradual refraction in the plasma of the Sun's corona is well known & can be identified by the associated rainbowing (this bending-refraction-rainbowing falls to nearnuff zero at about 3 deg off the Sun).

However the gravitational bending found inside of & outside of 3 deg doesn't suffer any associated rainbowing. Einstein's GR doesn't predict rainbowing, in fact it might be ok to say that it predicts zero rainbowing. This is a worry for us aetherists, however aetheric explanations for gravitational bending too do not result in rainbowing. Our problem then being that the simplest aetheric explanation yields only 0.87 arcsec of bending, ie only a half of the measured Einsteinian 1.750 arcsec.  The aetheric 0.87 arcsec happens to be equal to the ballistic explanation-calculation carried out by Soldner in about 1804.

The Einstein's equations etc for bending are based on his General Relativity idea that light is slowed near mass due to gravitational potential. Einstein's GR explanation is silly & wrong, it has no micro foundation, his explanation is merely a macro math-trick to help to maintain his Special Relativity assumption that c appears to be constant.

He says that gravity changes clock rate (ticking)(called time dilation)(TD), & that gravity also changes lengths (called length contraction)(LC) in the radial directions from the object. Thusly he says that TD slows the speed of light in every direction at any point, & LC slows the speed of light in the 2 radial directions at that point (ie both the inwards c & the outwards c). Each effect (TD & LC) contributes 0.87 arcsec of bending, adding to 1.75 arcsec.

Einstein uses the Huygens bending equation (which is based on the slowing of light in media, giving bending)(ie refraction) to calculate an equivalent bending-refraction based on the slowing of light (in vacuum) near mass.  Bending in media we know gives rainbowing, but Einstein's bending near mass we know (radio wave VLBI measurements) doesn't give rainbowing.

Slowing near mass might indeed be true, but Einstein's silly SR & GR theory re the cause of such slowing cannot be true (in fact Einstein does not mention a real possible cause)(his psuedo-cause is merely a clever math-trick to make apparent c = c). The answer as to what causes slowing (ie a real slowing)(not just an apparent slowing) will have an aetheric explanation (if indeed such slowing exists). Still thinking.