singularity

> [Jim]: 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?

Einstein's explanations are in terms of other concepts that are accepted as operationally valid, but which themselves have poor explanations or none at all. The Meta Model in "Dark Matter..." is the first attempt I've seen to take cause and effect all the way back to first principles.

> [Jim]: Anyway, what about other errors in orbital data? How does the tidal effect of the sun relate to the Earth and not to Mercury? (as one example)

The Sun's tidal effect on the Earth raises tides about 1/3 as big as lunar tides, and over time helps to gradually slow the Earth's spin. However, its effect on Earth's orbit is negligible, even over 5 billion years (the Sun's age).

The Sun's effect on Mercury caused Mercury's spin to slow until it locked into its present 3-to-2 resonance. Getting into that particular resonance requires a prolate shape, which is part of the evidence sholwign that Mercury is an escaped former moon of Venus. However, as in the case with Earth, the Sun's tides have no detectible effect on Mercury's orbit.

In the model I wrote about in MRB, perihelion precession is caused by the wave property of matter, which makes it harder to accelerate matter near the perihelion of an orbit than near aphelion. That resistance causes the whole ellipse to precess. -|Tom|-

There are still some cobwebs here as far as I'm concerned but maybe it should be pasted over for now. The other thing(about solar tidal effects) should be the same for Mercury and Earth. If as you say the sun raises tides on Earth the same effect should be noticed on Mercury

> [Jim]: The other thing (about solar tidal effects) should be the same for Mercury and Earth.

Mercury is much closer to the Sun, so tidal effects there are much stronger.

> [Jim]: If as you say the sun raises tides on Earth the same effect should be noticed on Mercury

If tides on the Earth were as strong as those on Mercury, Earth would have lost its spin long ago and settled into some equilibroum configuration (as Mercury has). Because the tides out at this distance are so much weaker, Earth has still preserved a little bit of its original roughly 2-hour spin period. -|Tom|-

Tom,
Thanks very much for the criticism on Gerber's work. I have read other critiques along the same lines but never seen the quote by Einstein. Great stuff!! Any comments on Day's general thesis that the basic interactions in the Universe are Space/Matter and not Matter/Matter interactions.
Best Regards,
Al

Alfred T Virgilio

> [Alfred]: Any comments on Day's general thesis that the basic interactions in the Universe are Space/Matter and not Matter/Matter interactions.

We receive perhaps 6-8 dozen contributions each year similar to Day's here at Meta Research. Because we don't have the staff to read and evaluate most of these, we have developed several "quick look" criteria to help determine which will lead somewhere interesting and which will not. Among these criteria are "no assumptions without citation or argumentation". Day's stuff is filled with unjustified assumptions and declarations.

These cause many problems. Chief among them is that, when a reader doesn't agree with an assumption or is not persuaded it is true or even likely, there appears to be no point in reading on. People all over the world have inspirational ideas all the time. Part of a scientist's duties is checking some of these out and setting constraints on what is possible. But his/her top priority is shooting down his/her own inspirational ideas. The process of doing so is a humbling experience, but teaches that even those ideas that "work so well they can't be wrong" usually are.

I often say to students of science that, until you have shot down at least three of your own greatest ideas, you will lack a proper perspective about staying dispassionate, objective, and unbiased. You must test ideas with controls in place so that your own expectations and preferences cannot affect the outcome. Day's work repeatedly tells me he has not come to appreciate the importance of either avoiding unjustified assumptions and declarations or of controls over testing and evaluating one's own ideas.

If we graded contributions, Day's would not receive a very high score. Note that this is different than saying it is likely to be wrong. It means the ideas are presented in a way that is unacceptable to a scientist and makes controlled evaluation virtually impossible. Although mostly, such poorly presented ideas are wrong, in some cases they are the works of geniuses who lack communication skills. Sadly, that means their ideas will most likely die with them, unappreciated by others. -|Tom|-

Tom,
I appreciate your thoughtful, reasoned, straightforward and candid response. Dr Day's web site, particularly the summary page, does come across as arrogant.
I wish however I could induce you to read his book the Bridge from Nowhere. It is a fascinating read and Dr Day is much more circumspect in presenting his propositions. The first half of the book is an explanation of how our present thinking evolved. It is really a fascinating read full of wonderful vignettes about the great minds through history.
I would even buy it for you if that were an issue. Would it alter your view, I don't know. I do think you would find it entertaining.
Thanks again for your posts.
Peace,
Al

Alfred T Virgilio