Vexed Questions and Cosmogony

Ron asks:

I was looking to see if you claim solutions to some vexed questions but could not see any reference to them. Also it does not say how well it matches experimental observation, so before considering your works further I wish to ask the following questions. I would be grateful for any answers you send to me. My questions are:

1 What values does it predict for:

    A The perihelion advance of Mercury.

    B The Shapiro time delay.

    C The loss of time keeping of clocks with altitude and speed

2 Is your alternative to general relativity an absolute or a relativistic theory?

3 If you reject the big bang then what creation theory do you put in its place?

4 How do you react to Dark Energy?

If you can satisfy me on these points then you have a customer.

Ron, thanks for your vexed questions. Let me give some short answers pointing to where you might find more supporting info in the books and papers we have published at PSI.

1 What values does it predict for:

    A The perihelion advance of Mercury. [This has been discussed in detail by Prof. Rydin (2011). I include his entire abstract, which pretty much sums up this particular fallacious “proof” of GRT:

"Urbain Le Verrier published a preliminary paper in 1841 on the Theory of Mercury, and a definitive paper in 1859. He discovered a small unexplained shift in the perihelion of Mercury of 39” per century. The results were corrected in 1895 by Simon Newcomb, who increased the anomalous shift by about 10%. Albert Einstein, at the end of his 1916 paper on General Relativity, gave a specific solution for the perihelion shift which exactly matched the discrepancy. Dating from the 1947 Clemence review paper, that explanation and precise value have remained to the present time, being completely accepted by theoretical physicists as absolutely true. Modern numerical fittings of planetary orbits called Ephemerides contain linearized General Relativity corrections that cannot be turned off to see if discrepancies between observation and computation still exist of the magnitude necessary to support the General Relativity estimates of the differences. The highly technical 1859 Le Verrier paper was written in French. The partial translation given here throws light on Le Verrier’s analysis and thought processes, and points out that the masses he used for Earth and Mercury are quite different from present day values. A 1924 paper by a professor of Celestial Mechanics critiques both the Einstein and the Le Verrier analyses, and a 1993 paper gives a different and better fit to some of Le Verrier’s data. Nonetheless, the effect of errors in planet masses seems to give new condition equations that do not change the perihelion discrepancy by a large amount. The question now is whether or not the excess shift of the perihelion of Mercury is real and has been properly explained in terms of General Relativity, or if there are other reasons for the observations. There are significant arguments that General Relativity has not been proven experimentally, and that it contains mathematical errors that invalidate its predictions. Vankov has analyzed Einstein’s 1915 derivation and concludes that when an inconsistency is corrected, there is no perihelion shift at all!"]

    B The Shapiro time delay.

[This goes along with our analysis of the Pound-Rebka (1960) “proof” of SRT and GRT, which was discussed in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe" and in my blog (look up Rebka). Remember, the velocity of light, like other wave motions, is dependent on the medium, which in this case is aether. The density of aether_-1, which we speculate is the medium for light and gravitation, increases with distance from baryonic matter. This means that the velocity of light will be greatest in regions that contain little baryonic matter. The density of aether near the Sun or any other body is less than it is away from the Sun or any other body. Thus, passage near the Sun causes light velocity to decrease in the same way it does in other aether deficient media. That is why light travels at 300,000 km/s in outer space, but at just 225,000 km/s in water. After passing through a glass of water, light resumes its motion at the usual 300,000 km/s, simply because the velocity of the wave motion called light is dependent on the characteristics of the medium. It doesn’t need to be given a shove or extra force to get it up to the original velocity, because light is not a particle, which would require that.

In spite of such simple observations, Einstein persisted in his belief that light was a particle, predicting, naturally, that it would be slowed down by gravitation. Light, however, is not affected by gravitation, as Dr. Dowdye (2010) showed. Einstein may have gotten some predictions right, but for the wrong reasons as we showed with regard to the “gravitational redshift.” BTW: To keep c constant, as was his wish, he claimed that this was proof of “time dilation,” just another of his “vexed paradoxes.”]

    C The loss of time keeping of clocks with altitude and speed

[The altitude problem was discussed above as aether_-1 density changes with distance from baryonic matter. The effect of velocity on clocks was tested by Hafele and Keating (1972), who rivaled Eddington in producing about the most disgusting fallacious “proof” of relativity {see Borchardt (2011)}.]

 

2 Is your alternative to general relativity an absolute or a relativistic theory?

[The Ninth Assumption of Science is relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things). All microcosms in the infinite universe are in motion relative to all other microcosms.]

3 If you reject the big bang then what creation theory do you put in its place?

[The Eighth Assumption of Science is infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), which assumes that the universe had no beginning. Unlike the Big Bangers, we are not cosmogonists. Creation is the indeterministic opposite of conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). The BBT is especially silly in that, when we construct (or “create”) something, we must bring things together, while the BBT hypothesizes just the opposite.]  

4 How do you react to Dark Energy?

[In "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," Steve and I state that there is no such thing as energy, much less dark energy. Energy is an equation, concept, or idea describing matter in motion. Like momentum and force, it is neither matter nor motion, but a description of those two phenomena. Energy can neither exist nor occur. This stems from the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). In other words, univironmental determinism is based simply on neomechanics (mechanics based on the assumption of  infinity). Is there dark matter? Of course. In UCT we speculate that much dark matter exists in the universe as undetected planets without central stars. Whatever it is, it must be matter in motion. Could we calculate its energy? Sure, if it exists. Could dark (or light) energy exist independently of matter? No, there can be no matterless motion. Without matter, the calculation E=mc² would be E=0*c² = 0. At PSI, we define regressive physicists as those who do not know what time or energy is.]

  

References

Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68.

Dowdye, E.H., Jr., 2010, Findings convincingly show no direct interaction between gravitation and electromagnetism in empty vacuum space (http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 17th Conference of the NPA, 23-26 June, 2010: Long Beach, CA, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 7, p. 131-136.

Pound, R.V., and Rebka, G.A., 1960, Apparent Weight of Photons: Physical Review Letters, v. 4, no. 7, p. 337-341.

Rydin, R.A., 2011, The Theory of Mercury's Anomalous Precession ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6066.pdf ), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 501-506.