20120530

Why There is No Gravitational Aberration



Bob writes:

Glenn

Since you bring up aberration, I have two questions

1. Is there a definition for the aberration of gravity?
2. Is there a report of a specific test done that shows the measured value of gravitational aberration?

I have not found answers to these questions.

Bob de Hilster


Bob, thanks for the questions.

1.     Aberration is the delay noted between the actual real-time position of a celestial object and our knowledge of the position of the object. Thus, because it takes 500 seconds for the motion called light to travel through the aether from the Sun to Earth, the aberration is 2.083 degrees, as you noted in your paper (de Hilster, 2012). This is due to the rotation of Earth during those 500 seconds.
2.     There is no gravitational aberration because, as we showed in our NGT paper (Borchardt and Puetz, 2012), gravitation is completely different. Being parts of the same vortex, Earth and Sun behave almost as though they rotate as parts of a solid wheel. Earth is carried along in the sea of aether particles that rotate around the Sun. You can see this effect in our “water vortex experiment” (www.universalcycletheory.com) in which tea leaves are carried along with the water that rotates around a central point. Nothing is required to travel from the Sun to Earth—aether pressures are essentially equal on both sides of Earth.  

Every microcosm is part of enumerable vortices. This is why we say that gravitation is universal, but local. Unlike light motion, there is no need for gravitational effects to travel long distances as either matter (today’s gravitons or Le Sage’s ultra-mundane corpuscles) or motion within an immaterial field (Einstein’s gravitational waves). Note that the math for Newton’s “attraction” and Einstein’s “curved empty space-time” (e.g., Carlip, 1999) works even though they identified no mechanical cause for gravitation.

References

Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, S.J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf), in Volk, Greg, and Whitney, C. K., eds., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9.

Carlip, S., 1999, Aberration and the speed of gravity: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2.pdf, 9 p.

de Hilster, Robert, 2012, The Wang eclipse (http://www.worldnpa.org/site/abstract/?abstractid=6453), in Volk, Greg, and Whitney, C. K., eds., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9.


20120524

Neomechanical Gravitation Theory


Our landmark paper on “Neomechanical Gravitation Theory” has just been posted on the Natural Philosophy Alliance website:

Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, S.J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf ), in Volk, Greg, ed., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Eagan, MN,  v. 9.

In addition to being a summary of NGT derived from the details in "Universal Cycle Theory" (www.universalcycletheory.com), it contains a bit more on the fundamentals of the formation of baryonic matter from aether. It also formally introduces our new term: “aethereal redshift.” We would appreciate hearing of any typos or logical errors before it goes to press on June 1.

20120523

Why Dark Energy Does Not Exist


I have differences with a colleague over the term “energy.” He believes energy to be equivalent to motion and considers our differences to be mere semantics. I don’t think so. Astute followers of this Blog know that I consider energy to be a matter-motion term. Energy is a calculation. Energy neither exists nor occurs; energy is neither matter nor motion.

He may regard energy as motion, but there are others who regard it as matter:

NASA says that: “roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe.” (http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/)

It is quite clear in this passage that NASA regards dark energy as matter, in other words, dark energy is a thing just like “dark matter” and “normal matter.”

So it certainly is not simply a matter of semantics when the same term can be used for two different fundamental phenomena by different people. I suppose that on Thursday, I could regard energy as motion, and on Friday, I could regard it as matter. You could have some fun with your modern physicist friends by asking them what energy is. The only correct answer is that energy is a calculation: E=mc2, the physical meaning of which I discussed in: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf. This calculation, like other matter-motion terms such as momentum and force, describes matter in motion. NASA’s imagery is of bare-naked matterless motion floating around outer space—an impossibility. My friend should give up “energy” whenever possible, like Steve and I did to great advantage in "Universal Cycle Theory" (www.universalcycletheory.com).






20120516

Why Belief in Evolution is so Low in the US


Jerry Coyne, one of my new heroes, is by no means a univironmental determinist, but he is an excellent determinist, conventional neo-Darwinist, and somewhat frustrated promoter of evolution to the masses. As you may recall, I have quoted him extensively on the perversity of the freewill idea. I highly recommend his Blog site at: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/author/whyevolutionistrue/. Jerry recently gave an excellent lecture at Harvard, which began with a great review of the critical evidence supporting evolution. He also listed examples of the kind of evidence that would lead to its immediate rejection and pointed out that no such evidence has ever been found. To his chagrin, recent surveys show that the US has the second lowest acceptance of evolution (12%) among 31 Western nations (and Japan). He traces this to the fact that the US is devoutly religious despite its advanced technology. He cites work that demonstrates the inverse correlation between religious belief and the general well-being of the populace as measured by high levels of income inequality, child mortality, incarceration, and low levels of health care. The lecture is 1:15 hr:


Here is a short news article about the talk:


I recommend the talk so highly, because not only it is an excellent review, but also because it will remind us in PSI and NPA what we are up against in overcoming the Big Bang Theory (BBT). As I have maintained for lo these many years, the problem with the BBT, relativity, and modern physics in general is not mathematical; it is philosophical. The struggle between the evolutionists and the creationists is a more mature analog of the struggle between Infinite Universe Theory (IUT) and BBT. Both proceed at a snail’s pace because, like everything else, progress occurs within a univironment. Change in science is highly dependent on change in society, and vice versa. Science is progressive because it inevitably involves an evermore-intensive investigation of the microcosm as well as the macrocosm.

The evolutionists have been working on their theory for over 150 years, and yet, acceptance among the populace is only 12%? Good thing we don’t have to convince all those folks about the correctness of IUT. We only have to convince a few powerful scientists who are smart enough to understand what we are talking about and courageous enough to take on yet another battle with the creationists. We have been plugging away at relativity for almost 110 years—only 40 more to go. Not coincidently perhaps, this will be when the shredding of traditional philosophies will be accompanied by an inevitable global economic readjustment (The Scientific Worldview, p. 290).

Here is the latest on the inverse correlation between supernatural belief and well-being:


20120509

Aethereal Redshift


David asks:

Does the prediction of redshift nullify the "expansion" interpretation for the big bang? In other words, is it a different explanation than expansion?


David:

Right. The idea that the universe is expanding was always silly. Now we know why: the assumption that c was constant. Aether deniers, like Einstein, have no medium for light. That is why they have to objectify light motion as enigmatic massless particles or wave-particles. In UCT (www.universalcycletheory.com), we speculate that aether is densest where baryonic matter is rarest. The miss-named “gravitational redshift” supports this. When light is emitted from celestial bodies, it enters regions in which the aether/baryonic matter ratio increases. Light velocity, like all wave velocities, is a function of the density of the medium. The regions between galactic clusters would have the densest aether and the highest light velocity.  Thus, 10 cycles at 1.1c would have wavelengths 10% longer than 10 cycles at c. As Hubble always suspected, most of the galactic redshift is a function of distance travelled through intergalactic regions. The Doppler Effect still occurs, of course, but it would simply be a function of the motion of the source, not its distance from the observer. Our paper, "Neomechanical Gravitational Theory," to be presented at NPA19 in July has more details (Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory, in Volk, G., ed., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 53-58. [10.13140/RG.2.1.3991.0483]).

20120502

Two Major Errors in Philosophy


William Westmiller writes:

Your Socratic Method is amusing, but it's not a rational discussion that seeks to arrive at the truth of any proposition.

In my opinion, the two most common errors in philosophy are logical contradiction and inconsistency with the facts of reality.

Solipsism and fatalism are indeed false alternatives, but they are more sentimental dispositions than philosophy. It may be comforting to imagine that the universe is merely the product of your disembodied mind, or to resign yourself to utter irrelevance, but neither inclination is rational or coherent.

In a sense, your "univironmental determinism" is just a compromise between two sentiments: it isn't ALL you and it isn't NO you, it's something in between. In my view, that evades the challenge of determining what
IS you in the context of an infinite universe.

Bill:

I am honoured to be placed with such noble company. Just hope that it works out better.

I beg to differ on your claim that the “Socratic Method is amusing, but it's not a rational discussion that seeks to arrive at the truth of any proposition.” The reason that the method works at all (in law and politics, for instance) is because it forces us to include yet another bit of the macrocosm into our inevitably microcosmic thoughts. Because the universe is infinite, the exchange can continue forever. As maintained in TTAOS, the “truth of any proposition” can never be known because the “truth” demanded by indeterminists is absolute and therefore finite. The infinite universe can offer no such truth. The errors in philosophy that you prefer, logical contradiction and inconsistency with reality, are each subsets amenable to univironmental analysis. Logical contradiction is what a lawyer seeks to find in the testimony of a false witness: the elements of the microcosm of statement A do not match the elements of the macrocosm of statement B. Inconsistency with reality occurs when the microcosm of our hypothesis does not match the macrocosm our observation or experiment.

As I have maintained for decades, the two most important errors one can make in philosophy are to overemphasize the microcosm or to overemphasize the macrocosm. The opposed philosophies (they are not merely “sentimental dispositions”), solipsism and fatalism, are the dialectical opposites we must contend with everyday. Univironmental determinism (UD) is not a mere compromise between these two errors of overemphasis. I know folks who have made a compromise between solipsism (belief that they will live after dying) and fatalism (belief in astrology). They are by no means univironmental determinists.

Bill, you wrote that UD means that “it isn't ALL you and it isn't NO you, it's something in between. In my view, that evades the challenge of determining what IS you in the context of an infinite universe.” As microcosms, portions of the infinite universe, we have no choice but to interact constantly with the macrocosm according to UD. Your emphasis on the word IS seems typical of indeterminists who are not satisfied with our situation as infinitely complex, still ambulatory and conscious portions of the infinite universe. There is no challenge for me. I know what I am, where I came from, and where I am going. Your implied search for absolute truth, like the search for finity, can never succeed.