PSI Blog 20250428 Does Gravitation have a Physical Cause?
“The Infinite Universe operates via collisions. Here a bat transfers motion to a baseball. Photo by Chris Chow on Unsplash” (Borchardt, 2025, Figure 3).[1] The collider (the bat) is obvious here, but Newton’s “attraction” and Einstein’s "space-time" do not have colliders—even hypothetical ones—for gravitation.
“Dear
Doctor Borchardt,
I
haven't finished reading your relativity book yet (I have to set such books
aside often to digest them a bit before taking them up again) but I am a
nonbeliever in "space-time." According to some, Einstein eliminated
the "force of gravity" a la Newton and replaced it with curved space
time (with no explanation why space and time would link up rather than space
and, say, temperature, also no explanation as to how the link would be
established, and no explanation of how matter could distort ST (does it displace
it like a rock in water?) and so on.”
[GB:
Thanks for the interesting questions. I often get responses that simply
advertise the reformist theories of others. Those generally are filled with
numerous errors and violations of "The Ten Assumptions of Science." I
admire your skepticism about Einstein’s General Relativity Theory. You are
correct about its nonsensical assumption that time and matter form some weird
combination that conveniently and coincidentally provides 4D salvation for the
Big Bang Theory and its phony universal expansion interpretation of the
cosmological redshift.
Space-time
is an einsteinism, which means it is correct, but for the wrong reason. You are
right that space-time hypothesizes no physical reason for gravitation. The
“curved perfectly empty space” surrounding massive bodies is filled instead
with aether. Aether particles are the accelerators that produce the
acceleration of gravitation.[2] The resulting deceleration of those particles
produces a reduction in proximal aether pressure per Newton’s inverse square
equation. That means there is an “aetherosphere” around every mass. It is the
opposite of the atmosphere, which, of course, has a distal decrease in
pressure, while the aetherosphere has a distal increase.
The
aetherosphere thus forms Einstein’s curved space-time. Satellites entering that
aetherosphere rotate around the massive body, with their normally straight-line
motion following the path of least resistance. That is the point where distal
and proximal pressures are equivalent. If the satellite tried to go straight
instead of following the path of least resistance, it would run into an area of
high distal pressure. Aether particles in that high pressure area would push
the satellite toward the area of lower proximal pressure.]
“Here
is my question, based upon a thought experiment. The example in my mind
involves a star and a planetoid, but it could be any two masses, one much
bigger than the other. The larger mass distorts the ST around it creating
curved paths the smaller object to follow were it moving . . . but what if the
two objects were placed in proxy with neither moving. Classically we would say
that the smaller mass would "fall" into the larger one. But if the
smaller mass is not moving, it would follow no path, so what causes it to move,
according to Einstein?”
[GB:
Actually, inertial motion, such as demonstrated by satellites is explained by
Newton’s First Law of Motion, which I modified per neomechanics as “Every
microcosm continues in uniform motion until the direction and velocity of its
motion is changed by collisions with supermicrocosms.”[3] That is the law of the universe, which fits
with the true meaning of relativity discovered by Lucretius: the fact that
everything in the universe is moving with respect to other things. So no
satellite can be without motion.
The
closest is this by Perplexity AI: “A stationary satellite is called a
geostationary satellite. This type of satellite orbits the Earth at an altitude
of approximately 35,800 kilometers (22,300 miles) directly above the equator
and revolves in the same direction as the Earth's rotation. Because it
completes one orbit every 24 hours—the same time it takes the Earth to rotate
once—a geostationary satellite appears fixed at a single point in the sky to an
observer on the ground.” In actuality, it is traveling 11,070 km/hr.
Satellites
invariably slow down as they collide with aether particles (and the
atmosphere). That is why we have leap years and leap seconds for Earth’s
revolution and rotation. It is why the orbital distance decreases, with the
satellite eventually being pushed to the ground. The only way for the orbit of
a satellite to increase would be for it to be pushed by a collision from
behind. That could be via an asteroid or a jet engine.]
I
just don't see how the ST theories eliminate any "force of gravity."
[GB:
They don’t, and that is why they are no better than “attraction,” which also
does not explain gravitation in terms of physics. Real physics is simple, with
force being defined as F=ma. All causes involve collisions per Newton's Second
Law of Motion (Figure above). That means something having mass (m) must
accelerate (a) another thing having mass. The motion of the collider decreases,
while the motion of the collidee increases. Appropriate to today’s “age of
irrationality,” Einstein magical “alternative truth” did not involve
collisions. This conveniently prevented classical mechanics from destroying
what remained of religion.]
Thanks
for your work. I find it very stimulating (and difficult for an aged chemist to
work through, even having been a physics buff (and cosmology and astronomy . .
.) for many, many years.
[GB:
Welcome. BTW: You are not the only one. The older we are, the harder it is to
replace the myths we were forced to learn by regressive physicists and
cosmogonists. Just think what you have to do in order to return to rationality.
You must now replace: “finity” with “infinity,” “time as a dimension” with
“time as motion,” “light as particle motion (of photons)” with “wave motion (in
an aether medium),” “perfectly empty space” with “infinitely subdividable
matter,” “systems analysis” with “univironmental analysis,” etc. BTW2: You
might want to read "The Scientific Worldview (2nd edition)," as it
goes through my logic step by step. You will find that the infinity assumption
solves so many previously unresolved problems. In particular, its inclusion in
“neomechanics” removes the finity that plagued classical mechanics and set the
stage for Einstein’s imaginary “alternative truth.”]
PSI
Blog 20250428
Thanks
for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy of the just-released Second
Edition of "The Scientific Worldview" to see the step-by-step logic leading to the
rational view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the
demise of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy Now.
[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2025, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein (2 ed.): Walnut Creek, CA, Progressive Science Institute, 551 p. [ https://gborc.com/TSW25 ].
[https://gborc.com/TSW25].
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment