singularity

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The big money uses the shrewd fundamentalists to silence the inventors, preserving the staus quo (their profits) with the excuse of national security.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Please don't you turn the discussion into a conspiracy theory chat.
Do you have anything to say on the matters discussed above in the thread?

Speaking as monitor here I would say that although I believe in freedom of expression, as long as it's civil, I think Agora is right here. If someone wants to go off in a completely new direction, try starting a new topic in the appropriate category, and see who picks up on it. Neil

Lets say someone has a machine that does useful work. Who would you contact about the how to construct details? Patents are useless and nobody wants to help in any way to develop new machines because they willnot work according to everyone but the inventor. This has been true since the light bulb was invented and these days there are so many bogus ideas around it is impossible to make any new thing that does useful work. Maybe in the future these useful machines will be developed. The time is wrong now.

Some food for thought on a new worldview: Non Newtonian Physics

As Dr. William Day says in the preface to his book, Bridge From Nowhere, every Age has had an explanation for the Universe and the order of Matter in it. Each has believed its account to be the final solution and resisted attempts to change it. Our Age is no different. Current theory whose premises date from about 360 years ago established the concept of motion as a condition and the change of motion as the property upon which everything exists: Dynamic Equilibrium. This a 17th Century Worldview whose principles (everything in the Universe is held together by forces) are still being applied (or trying to be applied) to a World that has accumulated centuries of Knowledge Newton and Galileo never knew. This 17th Century Worldview has splintered and lost its unity, when extended into diverse levels of the Atom, subatomic particle's and the wave nature of light. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don' mix and there is no Unified Field Theory. Einstein defined reality as that which is witnessed by the Observer (Relativity) and thus severed Physics from a fundamental element of our logic system: That there is an objective reality apart from the observer. Quantum theory gives us the Copenhagen interpretation, which offers us the absurd conclusion that matter exists only when there is an observer. The properties of matter are only in the mind of the observer. Nature is absurd, irrational. There is no cause to phenomena. No Cause and Effect.
Lest we forget Science is founded on the principle that nature is rational. That there is an objective reality. There are causes and effects. And theories must be as free of irrationalities of logic as mathematics must be free of procedural errors. But there is an interpretation of Motion, which does lead to a simple Unified Theory. If we assume that matter's hierarchy, particles, atoms and gravitational systems follows a general pattern of lesser components orbiting a nuclear body then motion becomes a structural feature of matter. From this simple premise, everything can be integrated into all phenomena that stem from a single constant: Motion. And a New World View of extraordinary power, beauty and rationality emerges. The Universe left to itself does not degenerate into chaos but rather though selfgeneration organizes itself into stable systems, from particles to atoms to gravitational systems; and in my opinion to life itself. Dr. Days web site: URL: www.non-newtonianphysics.com/index.htm contains a wealth of information. His books on this subject, The Bridge from Nowhere, The Bridge from Nowhere II, Holistic Physics, and A New Physics are incredible. Whether right or wrong his work is provocative and IMHO coherent and beautiful.
Day’s theories explain the nature of matter and space and how the material universe came into existence. Not from a Big Bang but from the other 'half' of reality, a non-material medium (space) where matter evolved from a photonic source. Where Galaxies are the crucibles of creation of the material universe.
Days book the Bridge from Nowhere is filled with wonderful vignettes about the men and women who wrote the theories and performed the experiments.Did you know that E=mc2 was discovered without relativity and published 2 years before Einstein included it as a footnote to his paper 1

One of proofs of relativity was the prediction of the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. Sure enough the predicted difference matched Einstein’s prediction. The only problem, apparently overlooked, is that a German named Paul Gerber published a paper in 1898 (18 years prior to Einstein’s publication) that predicted the same results as Einstein Relativistic equations using Classical physics under the assumption that gravity was not instantaneously transmitted but rather propagated at the speed of light.

1 Umberto Bartocci, Albert Einstein ed Olinto De Pretto - La vera storia del-la formula piu famosa del mondo, Ultreja, Padova, 1998
2 Gerber, P.,"Die raumliche und zeitliche Ausbreitung der Gravitation"Zeitsch. f.Mathem. U. Physik 43, 93-104, 1898

Alfred T Virgilio

> [BigAl]: One of proofs of relativity was the prediction of the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. Sure enough the predicted difference matched Einstein’s prediction. The only problem, apparently overlooked, is that a German named Paul Gerber published a paper in 1898 (18 years prior to Einstein’s publication) that predicted the same results as Einstein Relativistic equations using Classical physics under the assumption that gravity was not instantaneously transmitted but rather propagated at the speed of light.

Let me confine my comments on this rambling message to one factual problem. Gerber's paper was not overlooked. It is simply wrong. Note the following points:

Gerber's derivation contains an elementary error in dynamics, obvious to anyone trained in celestial mechanics. In addition, the first-order effect of any such light-speed delay would be acceleration of the orbital period, which would be four orders of magnitude greater than the effect on perihelion motion. These problems were well known at the time, which is why the article was buried. Years later, Einstein was asked if Gerber deserved any credit for getting the formula first. In "Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity", edited by G.E. Tauber, Crown Publishers, NY, 1979, on pp. 97-99 we read the following quote from Einstein, which in turn came from "Berliner Tageblatt und Handels-Zeitung, August 27, 1920":

"Mr. Gehrke wants to give the impression that the perihelion motion of Mercury can also be explained without the theory of relativity. ... You [could] use the work of Gerber, who has given the correct formula for the perihelion motion of Mercury before I did. The experts are not only in agreement that Gerber's derivation is wrong through and through, but the formula cannot be obtained as a consequence of the main assumption made by Gerber. Mr. Gerber's work is therefore completely useless, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt. I maintain that the theory of general relativity has provided the first real explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury. I have not mentioned the work by Gerber originally, because I did not know it when I wrote my work on the perihelion motion of Mercury; even if I had been aware of it, I would not have had any reason to mention it."

Unfortunately, the Gerber article did not stay buried, and keeps getting dug up whenever someone wants to cite Gerber's result, but hasn't yet examined the derivation.

My paper “The Perihelion Advance Formula” [MRB 8, 10-15 & 24-30 (1999)] shows that the basic form of the formula for perihelion motion is given by the laws of dynamics and the properties of an ellipse, and anyone could derive that form in connection with a variety of possible perturbations. When working with metric theories, the only thing that varies as one tries different metrics (valid or invalid) is the numerical coefficient, which for general relativity (GR) is a factor of three. Both Gerber and Einstein knew that they needed a factor of three to get the observed perihelion motion, so they both introduced arguments to justify a factor of three. Gerber's arguments were wrong. Einstein had to play with the metric coefficients until he got it right. The factor of three comes from three separate contributions, one contributing a coefficient of +4, another a factor of +1, and the third -2, taking away 40% of the other two contributions combined. These total to the required +3. So while Einstein's numerical answer is certainly correct, his method to arrive at it is not unique, and indeed is somewhat in doubt.

In my article, I also showed how an alternative *interpretation* of GR (not really an alternative model because the math is the same) yields the +3 factor in a single contribution. But what all knowledgeable parties since Gerber agree upon is that one cannot get the correct formula using valid dynamics together with the assumption that gravity propagates at lightspeed. -|Tom|-

This gravity matter about orbital matters has some meat to it some of the other gravity stuff seems to me to lack. How does any one of the three Mercury orbit explainations differ from say the Maya Indians observations? None of it really explains anything or am I missing something? Anyway, what about other errors in orbital data? How does the tideal effect of the sun relate to the Earth and not to Mercury? (as one example)