TSW: "Eddington’s celebrated 'observation' that the path of light from a distant star is curved by its passage near the sun."
BW: The path IS curved by gravity (which you seem to endorse), but Eddington's data certainly didn't prove it. Even if it had, it would simply confirm Newton's gravitational theory, asserting that the sun would affect massive light corpuscles.
TSW: Eber: "... the Universe had no beginning, and is consequently infinite in spacetime."
BW: You're jumping back to your prior arguments about an infinite universe, which isn't really relevant to gravitational theory or the nature of light. However, a few comments:
TSW: "Astronomers have discovered that galaxies decelerate as they diverge from one another."
BW: Actually, the exact opposite is suggested by current redshift evidence: the most remote galaxies are *accelerating* away at a greater speed:
... which kind of messes up Hubble's Constant.
BW: It is true that the aether theory requires deceleration, but an infinite universe theory requires persistent equilibrium. The two aren't consupponible:
BW: A strange endorsement of the idea that mass is *caused by* motion, which is postulated in Einstein's SR. It's also a contradiction of your earlier assertion that motion is "what matter does", rather than motion being an object that can cause effects.
TSW: "Like all other microcosms, [protons and electrons] too are subject to the gravitational bombardment that tends to push them together."
BW: Strangely out of sync with your proposition that gravity is the *absence* of material aether, which can't produce "bombardment".
TSW: "The Theory of the Infinite Universe sketched above is in some ways similar to the 'steady-state theory' ..."
BW: Inconsistent with your prior statement that galaxies are decelerating, which suggests a collapsing universe.
TSW: "The relative increase in internal motion of already existing submicrocosms is measured as a relative increase in mass."
BW: You haven't explicitly defended the proposition that the motion of matter causes mass, which strikes me as a circular, self-contradictory idea: mass has to exist before it can move. IF it were true that relative motion causes mass, then every material object in the universe would be eternally expanding. Back to a solid "Block Universe".
- Matter is any xyz portion of the universe that contains other matter, ad infinitum.
- Mass is the resistance of a microcosm to acceleration.
Thus mass can increase (due to an increase in submicrocosmic motion), even though the amount of matter does not change. Remember that this increase in mass is due to an increase in the velocity of submicrocosms. It has nothing to do with the velocity of the microcosm per se, which was erroneously proposed by Einstein. Thus, we seem to agree that velocity cannot magically increase the mass of a microcosm in the absence of a macrocosm. On the other hand, any acceleration produces impacts that increase mass. Thus, the mass of the space shuttle increases at it collides with the atmosphere, heating up in the process. The mass decreases as it cools. That is why a hot coffee cup has more mass than a cool one, although it has the same amount of matter in each case.]
BW: BTW: You mention Steven Bryant in your article on gravity. I'd read everything on his website and sent him a few questions about his MMX analysis. That prompted a flurry of emails and his subsequent agreement with my article on the experiment, demonstrating that MMX *could not have shown* any aether effects. Let me know if you'd like a copy of that article (incorporating some revisions suggested by Steven).
Next: The Origin of Life