Classical Physics without General Relativity: It could be done.

[kmarinas86]

_____

THE FIRST POSTULATE

_____

In a gravitational field, the orbital angular momentum of a photon of
an effective mass of m at a radial distance r from a mass M (note:
capitalized) is:

L = m v r sin(theta)

Where:
theta = the angle between the photon's path at position r' and the
connecting line of length r from the center of M to position r'.
m = the photon's energy at r' divided by the square of the speed of
light.

Because this is a photon, c=v. Also, m expands to hf/c^2:

L = (hf/c^2) c r sin(theta)

Where:
h is Planck's constant.
f is the photon's frequency.
c is the speed of light.

L = h(f/c) r sin(theta)

Substituting for "f/c":

L = (h/lambda) r sin(theta)

Where lambda is the wavelength of the photon at position r'.

L = (h/(lambda_0*sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)) r sin(theta)

Where:
lambda_0 = the wavelength of the photon at a gravitational potential
of 0.
sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2) = the contraction factor

Rearranging:

L = (h/lambda_0) * (r/sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)) * sin(theta)

Substituting for "h/lambda_0":

L = (m_0 c) * (r/sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)) * sin(theta)

Where:
m_0 = the effective mass of the photon at a gravitational potential of
0.
m_0 * c = the energy of the photon at gravitational potential of 0,
divided by the speed of light = h*f_0/c = h/lambda_0.
f_0 = the frequency of the photon at gravitational potential of 0.

Rearranging:

L/(m_0 c) = (r/sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)) * sin(theta)

Dividing both sides by the Schwarzschild radius.

L/(m_0 c) / (2GM/c^2) = ((r/(2GM/c^2))/sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)) * sin(theta)



_____

THE SECOND POSTULATE

_____

1 = L/(m_0 c) / (2GM/c^2) = ((r/(2GM/c^2))/sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)) *
sin(theta)

Rearranging:

1 = L/(m_0 c) / (2GM/c^2) = (rc^2/2GM)/sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2) * sin(theta)

Deducing LHS:

L = (m_0 c) * 2GM/c^2

L = 2GMm_0/c

Deducing RHS:

sin(theta) = (2GM/rc^2)*sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)

theta = asin((2GM/rc^2)*sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2))



_____

THE PREDICTION

_____

Thus, given the known small angle approximation for the sine of an
angle, for small theta in radians:

theta ~ (2GM/rc^2)*sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)

2GM/rc^2 << 1

theta ~ (2GM/rc^2)

Where theta is the maximum change of angle from r_0 to the local
minimum value of r, as well as the the maximum change of angle from
the local minimum value of r to r_0, where r_0 is the value of r at a
gravitational potential of 0. Thus the maximum change of angle from
r_0 to r and back to r_0 is 2*theta, which for small theta is
approximately 4GM/rc^2, which is the same as predicted by Einstein's
Theory of General Relativity.



_____

THE THIRD POSTULATE

_____

Independently of the first and second postulates, it can be deduced
from accepted theory that:

T = m/m_0 = 1/sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)

Where:
T = the gravitational time dilation factor.
m = the energy of the photon, at position r', divided by the square of
the speed of light.
m_0 = the energy of the photon, at a gravitational potential of 0,
divided by the square of the speed of light.

As known from General Relativity, the gravitational time dilation
factor also equals:

T = f/f_0

T = lambda_0/lambda

Correct interpretation of this requires f, f_0, lambda_0, and lambda
to be evaluated in the same inertial frame.



_____

TESTING FOR LOGICAL CONSISTENCY

_____

To simplify the appearance of equations to follow, let S=2GM/c^2,
where "S" stands for the Schwarzschild Radius.

Recall that from above, it was deduced that:

L = 2GMm_0/c

Which follows from the second postulate. Also, it was given at start
that:

L = m v r sin(theta)

v = c

Thus:

m v r sin(theta) = 2GMm_0/c

m c r sin(theta) = 2GMm_0/c

m r sin(theta) = (2GM/c^2)m_0

m r sin(theta) = S*m_0

m/m_0 = (S/r)/sin(theta)

At this point, the third postulate can be taken into account:

T = (S/r)/sin(theta)

1/sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2) = (S/r)/sin(theta)

1/sqrt(1-S/r) = (S/r)/sin(theta)

sin(theta) = (S/r)*sqrt(1-S/r)

Which expands to:

sin(theta) = (2GM/rc^2)*sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)



This result is exactly the same as a previous formula above:

sin(theta) = (2GM/rc^2)*sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)



_____

RESULTS

_____

The first postulate:

L = (hf/c^2) c r sin(theta)

Together with the second postulate:

1 = L/(m_0 c) / (2GM/c^2)

Is logically consistent with the third postulate:

m/m_0 = 1/sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)



_____

THE PHOTON SPHERE

_____

The equations given thus far have demonstrated agreement with General
Relativity in the non-relativistic case. However, the heretofore
proposed idea can be distinguished from General Relativity in that it
predicts that black holes cannot form, in the strictest sense. The
first reason is simple: the heretofore proposed idea rejects the idea
of curved space. The second reason is a mathematical argument: the
formulas above predict a maximum deflection of approximately
0.395099667 radians, or exactly asin((2/3)*sqrt(1-2/3)) radians. In
addition to this, the derivative of sin(theta) with respect to 2GM/
rc^2 approaches 0 when 2GM/rc^2=2/3, which is where r=(3/2)*(2GM/c^2).
This is the radius at which the photon sphere exists.

The derivative of sin(theta) = (2GM/rc^2)*sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2) with
respect to 2GM/rc^2 can be solved in closed form:

d(sin(theta))/d(2GM/rc^2) = (sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)-((2GM/rc^2)/
(2*sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2))))/sqrt(1-((1-2GM/rc^2)(2GM/rc^2)^2))

This can be simplified to:

d(sin(theta))/dx = (sqrt(1-x)-(x/(2*sqrt(1-x))))/sqrt(1-((1-x)x^2))

Where x=2GM/rc^2.

When x=2/3, d(sin(theta))/dx = 0.

The derivative becomes negative for r < 3/2 S, in which case the
photon would bend away from the central mass, rather than towards it.
The derivative approaches negative infinity at decreasing
infinitesimal distances from the center of mass M, which prevents
light being attracted to an infinitely dense singularity. It also
prevents a true singularity from forming in the first place and avoids
any sort of information paradox that would otherwise arise from it. In
short, this prevents a break down of the laws of physics associated
with blackhole theory.

In contrast to General Relativity, where the photon sphere is seen as
being a region of unstable equilibrium, the photon sphere in this
heretofore proposed idea is highly stable equilibrium.

Thus, one could conjecture that atoms and molecules are certain
instances where most of the energy exists in the form of
electromagnetic waves that resonantly oscillate in and out of the
photon sphere. This could lead a theory similar to Randell Mills'
concept of the orbitsphere yet more flexible in that it does not
require exact geometric symmetry to maintain stability.


_____

ANOMALOUS PRECESSION

_____

In the context of General Relativity, the most common layman-level
explanation for the precession is that of "time slowing down". This
factor, T, was shown above to be:

T = m/m_0 = 1/sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)

In the context of Special Relativity, the difference between m and m_0
is the relativistic kinetic energy divided by the square of the speed
of light. The relativistic kinetic energy only diverges from the
Newtonian value for kinetic energy at the relativistic limit.

T = (m_0 + KE/c^2)/m_0

(T*m_0 - m_0) = KE/c^2

(T - 1)*m_0 = KE/c^2

(T - 1)*m_0*c^2 = KE

While m_0 is the mass of the object in the absence of a gravitational
potential, (T - 1)*m_0 is the mass the object gains in the presence of
a gravitational potential.


_____

UNIFICATION OF POTENTIALS

_____

Because the photon sphere is a region of strong equilibrium with a
finite radius of 3GM/c^2, the gravitational potential is not a simple
1/r function. Indeed, the gravitational potential energy, which is
negative for attractive systems, reaches a bottom value at r=3GM/c^2
in a system of gravitational mass M. Thus, the gravitational potential
energy is higher both inside and outside the photon sphere.

Chemical and nuclear energies may in fact be gravitational potential
energy with respect to the inner wall of the photon spheres of
electron shells and atomic nuclei.

The sign of gravitational potential is not necessarily limited to
being negative if one adds the possibility that gravitational
potential is result of the scalar product of the momenta of
gravitating masses. A negative scalar product would correspond to a
negative gravitational potential, which produces attraction, while a
positive scalar product would correspond to a positive gravitational
potential, which produces repulsion.

It has been observed by scientists of Tohoku University in Japan that
a gyroscope rotated at high rotational speeds in a direction identical
to that of motions generated by the Earth's Coriolis forces in the
Northern Hemisphere (where the experiments took place), produced a
reduction in the effective mass which was observed when the gyroscope
was dropped. The spin axis of a such gyroscope, if project towards the
interior the earth like the lines protruding through the surface of a
bar magnet, indeed align with the spin axis of the earth. Critics have
explained this as an artifact by assuming the effect could not
possibly exist, according to the current mainstream theories of
physics.


_____

AFTERTHOUGHTS

_____

The significance of this result is that one can arrive at the expected
bending of light in the non-relativistic case, which is twice the
Newtonian limit, without the mathematically complex notion of curved
space. This is achieved first by assuming that the photon has a
constant orbital angular momentum of:

L = 2GMm_0/c

Where:
G = the gravitational constant.
M = the mass of the gravitating body.
m_0 = the effective mass of a photon at zero gravitational potential.
c = the speed of light.

As a result, if a constant value of L is assumed for the photon, by
applying the definition for the scalar magnitude of angular momentum
"L = m v r sin(theta)", one arrives at the mechanics from which can
create a differential equation for calculating the path that light
will take in theory. If the local minimum value of r and the initial
and final values of r, with respect to a single mass M, are presented
in the problem as givens, then integrating a differential equation can
be avoided when determining the net angular deflection.

Also of theoretical interest is the fact that the photon's orbital
angular momentum, as predicted by the formula above, is proportional
to the product of two masses (one being the effective mass of the
photon). This is analogous to the Newtonian gravitational potential
for two masses.

[JohnEB]

kmarinas86 said:

Classical Physics without General Relativity: It could be done.

Why?  Do you think there is a shortage of useless physics?

[kmarinas86]

Of course not. Randell Mills knows that General Relativity cannot be
left unaltered. In the October 13, 2010 edition:

"General relativity predicts singularities and a deceleration cosmology
—the opposite of that which is observed [15 16]."

"Separate theories of atomic physics such as quantum mechanics and
quantum electrodynamics, separate nuclear theories such as quantum
chromodynamics, a separate theory for particles such as the standard
model, a separate theory for gravity, general relativity, and separate
theories for cosmology such as the Big Bang, inflation, and dark
energy are artificial, internally inconsistent, incorrect, incomplete,
and not based on physical laws."

"15. R. M. Wald, General Relativity, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, (1984), pp. 91 101."
"16. N. A. Bahcall, J. P. Ostriker, S. Perlmutter, P. J. Steinhardt,
Science, May 28, 1999, Vol. 284, pp. 1481 1488."

"Application of Maxwell’s equations precisely predicts hundreds of
fundamental spectral observations and atomic and molecular solutions
in exact equations with no adjustable parameters (fundamental
constants only). Moreover, unification of atomic and large scale
physics, the ultimate objective of natural theory, is enabled. The
result gives a natural relationship between Maxwell’s equations,
special relativity, and general relativity."

"For any kind of wave advancing with limiting velocity and capable of
transmitting signals, the equation of front propagation is the same as
the equation for the front of a light wave. By applying this condition
to electromagnetic and gravitational fields at particle production,
the Schwarzschild metric (SM) is derived from the classical wave
equation, which modifies general relativity to include conservation of
spacetime, in addition to momentum and matter/energy and identifies
absolute space. The result gives a natural relationship between
Maxwell’s equations, special relativity, and general relativity. It
gives gravitation from the atom to the cosmos. The gravitational
equations with the equivalence of the particle production energies
permit the equivalence of mass energy and the spacetime that determine
the nature of absolute space wherein a “clock” is defined that
measures “clicks” on an observable in one aspect, and in another, it
is the ruler of spacetime of the universe with the implicit dependence
of spacetime on matter energy conversion. The masses of the leptons,
the quarks, and nucleons are derived from this metric of spacetime
that gives the equivalence of the gravitational and inertial masses.
The universe is time harmonically oscillatory in matter, energy, and
spacetime expansion and contraction with a minimum radius that is the
gravitational radius. In closed form equations with fundamental
constants only, CP gives the basis of the atomic, thermodynamic, and
cosmological arrows of time, the deflection of light by stars, the
precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Hubble constant, the age
of the universe, the observed acceleration of the expansion, the power
of the universe, the power spectrum of the universe, the microwave
background temperature, the primary uniformity of the microwave
background radiation, the polarization and microkelvin temperature
spatial variation of the microwave background radiation measured by
DASI, the observed violation of the GZK cutoff, the mass density of
the universe, the large scale structure of the universe, and the
identity of dark matter which matches the criteria for the structure
of galaxies and emission from interstellar medium and the Sun which
have been observed in the laboratory [26 27]. In a special case
wherein the gravitational potential energy density of a blackhole
equals that of the Planck mass, matter converts to energy and
spacetime expands with the release of a gamma ray burst. The
singularity in the SM is eliminated. The basis of the
antigravitational force is presented with supporting experimental
evidence."

"26. R. L. Mills, Y. Lu, K. Akhar, “Spectroscopic Observation of
Helium Ion and Hydrogen Catalyzed Hydrino Transitions,”
Cent. Eur. J. Phys., (2009), DOI: 10.2478/s11534 009 0106 9."
"27. R . L. Mills, Y. Lu, Hydrino Continuum Transitions with Cutoffs
at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 35
(2010), pp. 8446 8456, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.05.098."

"Matter and energy are interconvertible and are in essence different
states of the same entity. The state, matter or energy, is determined
by the laws of nature and the properties of spacetime. A photon
propagates according to Maxwell’s Equations at the speed of light in
spacetime having intrinsic impedance j . Matter, as a fundamental
particle, is created in spacetime from a photon. Matter obeys the laws
of Special Relativity, the relationship of motion to spacetime, and
spacetime is curved by matter according to the laws of General
Relativity. Relationships must exist between these laws and the
implicit fundamental constants. The fundamental elements which
determine the evolution of the Universe are the fundamental constants
of spacetime with the property of charge; the capacity of spacetime to
be curved by mass energy; and the photon's angular momentum. The
conversion of energy into matter requires a transition state for which
the identification of the entity as matter or energy is impossible.
From the properties of the entity, as matter or energy, and from the
physical laws and the properties of spacetime, the transition state
hereafter called a transition state orbitsphere are derived.
Concomitantly, the equations for the interconversion of matter and
energy are determined, and the fundamental constant relationships are
determined exactly."

"These relationships represent the unification of the fundamental laws
of the Universe, Maxwell’s Equations, Newtonian Mechanics, Special and
General Relativity, and the Planck equation and the de Broglie
relationship where the latter two can be derived from Maxwell’s
Equations as demonstrated in the Gravity section."

"General relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation developed
by Albert Einstein, whereby he intended to incorporate and extend the
special theory of relativity to accelerated frames of reference.
Einstein’s theory of general relativity is based on a flawed dynamic
formulation of Galileo Galilei’s law. Einstein took as the basis to
postulate his gravitational field equations a certain kinematical
consequence of a law, which he called the “Principle of Equivalence,”
which states that it is impossible to distinguish a uniform
gravitational field from an accelerated frame. However, the two are
not equivalent since they obviously depend on the direction of
acceleration relative to the gravitating body and the distance from
the gravitating body since the gravitational force is a central force.
(In the latter case, only a line of a massive body may be exactly
radial, not the entire mass.) And, this assumption leads to conflicts
with special relativity. The success of Einstein’s gravity equation
can be traced to a successful solution which arises from assumptions
and approximations whereby the form of the solution ultimately
conflicts with the properties of the original equation; no solution is
consistent with the experimental data in the case of the possible
cosmological solutions of Einstein’s general relativity. Furthermore,
Einstein’s general relativity is a partial theory in that it deals
with matter on the scale of celestial objects, but not on an atomic
scale. And, it fails on the cosmological scale. All gravitating bodies
are composed of matter and are collections of atoms that are composed
of fundamental particles such as electrons, which are leptons, and
quarks, which make up protons and neutrons. Gravity originates from
the fundamental particles."

"According to standard general relativity, the solution of the
deflection of light in a gravitational field requires that the
gravitational mass of the photon be
zero. To avoid an inconsistency with the equivalence principle, a hand
waving argument is offered wherein the parameter m in Eq. (32.81)
which is
unequivocally the gravitational mass somehow becomes the photon rest
mass. As shown in the Cosmology section, since the gravitational field
and the
photon both travel at the speed of light, the photon cannot give rise
to a gravitational field without violating causality. The zero rest
mass argument is
made further internally inconsistent by invoking special relativity to
magically make the rest mass of the photon be zero, but special
relativity absolutely
requires that the speed of the photon be c for all inertial frames
with the absence of a special frame. Specifically, the frame in terms
of the historical data
is that of an Earth observer, not a photon rest frame."

"The new possibilities for the global spatial structure of our
Universe should be stressed. In prerelativity physics, as well as in
special relativity, it was assumed that space had the flat structure
given by the possibility above. But even under the very restrictive
assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy, the framework of general
relativity admits two other distinct possibilities. The possibility of
a 3 sphere spatial geometry is particularly interesting, as it is a
compact manifold and thus describes a Universe which is finite but has
no boundary. Such a Universe is called “closed,” while the Universes
with noncompact spatial sections such as those given by flat and
hyperboloid geometries are called “open.” (One could construct closed
Universes with flat or hyperboloid geometries by making topological
identifications, but it does not appear to be natural to do so.) Thus,
an intriguing question raised by general relativity is whether our
Universe is closed or open."

"The expansion of the Universe in accordance with Eq. (32.126) has
been confirmed by the observation of the redshifts of distant
galaxies. The confirmation of this striking prediction of Einstein’s
general relativity is regarded as a dramatic success of the theory.
Unfortunately, the historical development of events clouded this
success and recent data reveals a fatal flaw in the nature of the
expansion. Einstein was sufficiently unhappy with the prediction of a
dynamic Universe that he proposed a modification of his equation, the
addition of a new term[.]"

"For many years it was generally believed that the prediction of a
singular origin of the Universe was due merely to the assumptions of
exact homogeneity and isotropy, that if these assumptions were relaxed
one would get a non singular “bounce” at small a rather than a
singularity. However, the singularity theorems of general relativity
[21] show that singularities are generic features of cosmological
solutions; they have ruled out the possibility of “bounce” models
close to the homogeneous, isotropic modes."

"21. R. M. Wald, General Relativity, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, (1984), Chp. 9 and Chp. 14."

"Dynamical predictions for the evolution of the Universe according to
Einstein’s equation are consistent with the expansion of the cosmos;
but are fatally flawed since they predict the possibility of an
expansion velocity that greatly exceeds the speed of light such that a
cosmology inconsistent with special relativity is possible, and all
cosmological solutions of Einstein’s general relativity predict a
decelerating Universe from a postulated initial condition of a “big
bang” expansion [13]8. The astrophysical data reveal an accelerating
cosmos [14], which invalidates Einstein’s equation. Furthermore,
multiple solutions with dramatically different consequences are
equally valid. The solutions to Einstein’s equation cannot account for
the power spectrum of the cosmos or the nature or uniformity of the
cosmic microwave background radiation. Einstein’s Universe is static
with expanding dust, expanding radiation, or a static expanding
mixture. In actuality, the Universe comprises predominantly matter
which is undergoing conversion into radiation with a concomitant
expansion of spacetime. The Einstein solutions predict the opposite of
the actual evolution of the cosmos wherein radiation dominates in the
early Universe with matter dominant later. The equations are derived
infra. They reconcile the shortcomings of Einstein’s general
relativity. The correct basis of gravitation is not according to
Einstein’s equation (Eq. (32.40)); instead the origin of gravity is
the relativistic correction of spacetime itself which is analogous to
the special relativistic corrections of inertial parameters—increase
in mass, dilation in time, and contraction in length in the direction
of constant relative motion of separate inertial frames. As matter
converts into energy spacetime undergoes expansion. On this basis, the
observed acceleration of the expansion of the cosmos is predicted."

"13. R. M. Wald, General Relativity, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, (1984), pp. 91 101."
"14. N. A. Bahcall, J. P. Ostriker, S. Perlmutter, P. J. Steinhardt,
Science, May 28, 1999, Vol. 284, pp. 1481 1488."

"Furthermore, a very plausible source of nonthermal gamma ray bursts
from interstellar regions [49] may be due to conversion of matter to
photons of the Planck mass energy, which may also give rise to cosmic
rays. When the gravitational potential energy density of a massive
body such as a blackhole equals that of a particle having the Planck
mass as given by Eqs. (32.22 32.32), the matter may transition to
photons of the Planck mass given by Eq. (32.31). In the case of the
Planck mass, the gravitational potential energy (Eq, (32.30)) is equal
to the Planck, electric, and magnetic energies which equal (Eq.
(32.32)), and the coordinate time is equal to the proper time (Eqs.
(32.33 32.34) and Eq. (32.43)). However, the particle corresponding to
the Planck mass may not form since its gravitational velocity (Eq.
(32.33)) is the speed of light. (The limiting speed of light
eliminates the singularity problem of Einstein’s equation that arises
as the radius of a blackhole equals the Schwarzschild radius. General
relativity with the singularity eliminated resolves the paradox of the
infinite propagation velocity required for the gravitational force in
order to explain why the angular momentum of objects orbiting a
gravitating body does not increase due to the finite propagation delay
of the gravitational force according to special relativity [52]).
Thus, it remains a photon. Even light from a blackhole will escape
when the decay rate of the trapped matter with the concomitant
spacetime expansion is greater than the effects of gravity which
oppose this expansion. The annihilation of a blackhole may be the
source of g ray bursts. Gamma ray bursts are the most energetic
phenomenon known that can release an explosion of gamma rays packing
100 times more energy than a supernova explosion [53]. Cosmic rays are
the most energetic particles known, and their origin is also a mystery
[54]. In 1966, Cornell University’s Kenneth Greisen predicted that
interaction with the ubiquitous photons of the cosmic microwave
background would result in a smooth power law cosmic ray energy
spectrum being sharply cutoff. However, in 1998, Schwarzschild
reported [55] that the Akeno Giant Air Shower Array (AGASA) in Japan
has collected data that show the cosmic ray energy spectrum is
extending beyond the Greisen Zatsepin Kuzmin (GZK) cutoff."

"49. Hurley, K., et. al., Nature, 372, (1994), pp. 652 654."
"52. T. Van Flandern, “The Speed of Gravity—What the Experiments Say,”
Physics Letters A, 250 (1998), pp. 1 11"
"53. R. Cowen, Science News, May 9, (1998), p. 292."
"54. M. Chown, New Scientist, May 10, (1997), p. 21."
"55. B. Schwarzschild, Physics Today, Vol. 51, No. 10, October,
(1998), pp. 19 21."

"According to the GZK cutoff, the cosmic spectrum cannot extend beyond
5*10^19 eV, but AGASA, the world’s largest air shower array, has shown
that the spectrum is without any clear sign of cutoff. Similarly, the
Utah Fly’s Eye had detected cosmic rays [56, 57]. Photons, each of the
Planck mass, may be the source of these inexplicably energetic cosmic
rays. Thus, the Universe is oscillatory in matter, energy, and
spacetime without the existence of antimatter due to conservation of
spin of the electron neutrino and the relationship of particle
production to spacetime contraction. During the expansion phase, the
arrow of time runs forward to lower mass and higher entropy states;
whereas, during collapse, the arrow of time runs backwards relative to
the case of the Universe in a state of expansion. Recent particle
physics experiments demonstrate that the decay of kaons and antikaons
follows a law that is not symmetric with respect to time reversal
[39]. The data reveals that there is a microscopic arrow of time, in
addition to the thermodynamic and cosmological arrows. The Universe
evolves to higher mass and lower entropy states. Thus, biological
organisms such as humans, which rely on the spontaneity of chemical
reactions with respect to the forward arrow of time cannot exist in
the contracting phase of the Universe. And, compared to the period of
the Universe, the origins of life occurred at a time very close to the
beginning of the expansion of the Universe when the direction of the
spontaneity of reactions changed to the direction of increasing
entropy and the rate of the increase in entropy of the Universe was a
maximum."

"39. Science News, Vol. 154, October 31, (1998), p. 277."
"56. G. Taubes, “Pattern emerges in cosmic ray mystery,” Science, News
Series, Vol. 262, No. 5140, (Dec. 10, 1993), p. 1649."
"57. D. J. Bird, et al., “Evidence for correlated changes in the
spectrum and composition of cosmic rays at extremely high
energies,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 71, No. 21, (1993), pp. 3401
3404."

"The definitive form of the field equations of general relativity
follow from the Schwarzschild metric (Eq. (32.38)) and can be
expressed in terms of the contraction of spacetime by the special
relativistic mass of a fundamental particle (Eq. (32.140)). The masses
and charges of the fundamental particles are determined by the
equations of the transition state orbitsphere herein derived where the
nonradiative boundary condition and the constancy of the speed of
light must hold which requires relativistic corrections to spacetime.
Fundamental particles can decay or interact to form an energy minimum.
Thus, each stable particle arises from a photon directly or from a
decaying particle, which arose from a photon. The photon, and the
corresponding fundamental particle, possess h-bar of angular momentum.
Nuclei form as binding energy is released as the orbitspheres of
participating nucleons overlap. Atoms form as the potential energy of
the fields of electrons and nuclei is released as the fields are
partially annihilated. Molecules form as the energy stored in the
fields of atoms is minimized. Planets and celestial bodies form as the
gravitational potential energy is minimized. All of these energies
correspond to forces, and the equations of the forces are given in the
Unification of Spacetime, the Forces, Matter, and Energy section."

"Spacetime has an intrinsic impedance of η. It provides a limiting
speed of c for the propagation of any wave, including gravitational
and electromagnetic waves. It further provides fields that match
boundary conditions. Matter/energy acts on spacetime and spacetime
acts on matter/energy. Thus, a spatial two dimensional manifold of
matter results in a gravitational field in spacetime; a three
dimensional spacetime manifold of current gives rise to a magnetic
field in spacetime; a spatial two dimensional manifold of charge gives
rise to an electric field in spacetime. Thus, General Relativity and
Maxwell’s Equations are valid on any scale. Furthermore, the existence
of matter with a determined mass as a three dimensional spacetime
manifold that is charged maximizes the volume of spacetime to the
surface area of matter. This gives an energy minimum of the resulting
gravitational, electric, and magnetic fields."

"The obvious question is how can the mass energy of the Universe be
increased up to arbitrary orders of magnitude by simply selecting an
inertial frame? The set of equivalent inertial frames extends over an
infinite range of kinetic energies relative to even one body for
example. Since the Universe is finite and closed, and matter, energy,
and spacetime are conserved these infinite possibilities for
equivalent inertial frames for the Universe with its unique
inventories is untenable. The frames of reference regarding relative
uniform motion are only convenient means to compare measurements in
those frames when absolute values are not important in the
determination, and it is not necessary to determine the relative rank
of the frames (e.g. the stationary versus the moving one). These
conditions may break down, and paradoxes arise that can only be
resolved by abandoning the simplified frames of special relativity and
invoking an absolute frame of reference.
Specifically, in addition to the lack of energy conservation and
physical mechanism for many of its consequences, another problem that
arises is the inability to determine which body is in motion when
comparing relative motion in order to arrive at consistent
predictions. The limitation in uniquely and unequivocally identifying
inertial frames centrally impacts the ability to interpret and apply
special relativity. This is particularly acute when objects initially
in the same inertial frame separate and rejoin. A famous example is
the case of the twin paradox. Here two twins separate and are rejoined
with intervening periods of acceleration and reversal of physical
displacement. A failure of special relativity is that upon rejoining
the traveling twin is younger relative to the stationary twin in
contradiction to his expectations since to him, it is the stationary
twin who had been in motion. Although strained “resolutions” to the
asymmetrical time dilation of the traveling twin have been put forward
including a far fetched one by Einstein regarding gravitational time
dilation of the general relativity theory, none are tenable [5]. The
fundamental impasse is inherent in the consideration that motion is
arbitrarily relative. There must be an absolute frame for each object
in order to conserve the mass/energy inventory of the Universe as well
as resolve paradoxes such as the twin paradox."

"5. A. Beiser, Concepts of Modern Physics, Fourth Edition, McGraw Hill
Book Company, New York, (1978), pp. 27 30."

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TOE%2002.10.03/Djvu%20Files/

[kmarinas86]

On Feb 17, 3:38 am, JohnEB <johnbarc...@frontier.com> wrote:
> kmarinas86 said:
>
> Classical Physics without General Relativity: It could be done.
>
> Why? Do you think there is a shortage of useless physics?

It's not just Randell Mills who thinks there exists an overabundance
of useless physics. Ronald Hatch doesn't seem to mind questioning some
aspects of General Relativity:

http://www.insidegnss.com/node/451

http://worldnpa.org/pipermail/memberschat_worldnpa.org/attachments/20091015/bb9f98a9/attachment.pdf

"Contrary to the assertion of Special Relativity, the speed of light
is not always constant relative to a moving observer. The Global
Positioning System (GPS) shows that the speed of light in the Earth
Centered Inertial (ECI) non-rotating frame remains at c relative to
the frame—but not relative to an observer or receiver moving in that
frame. When a GPS receiver changes its translation speed relative to
the ECI frame, the speed of light measured relative to the receiver
changes. A crucial experiment of the constancy of the speed of light
relative to a moving receiver could be conducted in the following way:
Let two GPS satellites and two airplanes be positioned in a straight
line. Let the two airplanes travel at the same speed directly toward
one of the two satellites
and directly away from the other satellite. The travel time
differences of GPS signals arriving at the two airplanes is measured
and recorded with the airplanes flying first toward one of the
satellites and then flying the opposite direction toward the other
satellite. The travel time differences obtained as the airplanes fly
in opposite directions are compared. If the travel time difference is
the same when the velocity of the airplanes is changed, then the speed
of light is indeed constant relative to the moving airplanes,
otherwise it is not. The calculation using the GPS range equation and
the results of a Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) differential GPS test have
shown that the constancy of the speed of light relative to moving
airplanes is not correct. The change of the time difference
could reach about 10 ns for subsonic airplanes and 30 ns for
supersonic airplanes. The result of this crucial experiment is not
only important scientifically, but also indicates the possibility of a
new way to directly measure vehicle speed relative to the ECI frame."

"Let us express the propagation delay equation completely: measured in
the ECI frame, the speed of light is isotropic and is equal to c
(light wave is a spherical wave) no matter whether the source or the
receiver is moving relative to the ECI frame or not (Figure 1). On the
surface, this looks like the constancy of the speed of light, because
only c appears in the equation. However, the assertions that the speed
of light is constant in just one inertial frame—the ECI frame—really
is not what the constancy of the speed of light means."

"Let us first consider the propagation of sound in the air. When the
disturbance caused by the motion of the source and the receiver can be
neglected, measured in a frame stationary in the air, the propagation
of sound wave is isotropic with a speed of sound a (a spherical
wave)."

"Obviously, the equation is the same as the GPS propagation delay
equation except there is a constant speed of sound a instead of the
constant speed of light c. Do we have a principle of the constancy of
the speed of sound because of the constant speed of sound a appearing
in the propagation delay equation? No, we do not. Contrarily, we say
that the speed of sound is not independent of the motion of the
receiver (observer). Why? In fact, when we
judge whether the speed of sound is or is not independent of the
motion of the observer, the speed of sound is measured in the frame of
the observer, not the frame of the air."

"Clearly, measured in the frame of the air, the sound wave propagates
with a constant speed of a for both ships, no matter whether the ship
is moving or at rest. However, measured in the frame of the observer
in the moving ship, the traveling distance of sound wave is still the
distance between bow and stern, but the traveling time is shorter.
Therefore, measured by this observer, the speed of sound is faster.
Hence, we never have a principle of the constancy of the speed of
sound. Contrarily, we say that the speed of sound is not independent
of the motion of the observer."

"About the Authors"

"Ruyong Wang graduated from Beijing University of Aeronautics and
Aerospace. He worked at the Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of
Sciences. Currently he works at St. Cloud State University. He has
been interested in Special Relativity, especially its crucial
experiments, for a long time and has published several papers on this
topic."

"Ronald R. Hatch received his Bachelor of Science degree in physics
and math in 1962 from Seattle Pacific University. He worked at Johns
Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, Boeing and Magnavox before working for a
time as a GPS consultant. In 1994 he joined Jim Litton, K.T. Woo, and
Jalal Alisobhani in starting what is now NavCom Technology, Inc. He
has served a number of roles within the Institute of Navigation (ION),
including Chair of the Satellite Division. He is currently finishing a
one-year term as President of the ION. Ron has received the Johannes
Kepler Award from the Satellite Division and the Colonel Thomas
Thurlow Award from the ION. He is also a Fellow of the ION. He has
been awarded twelve patents either as inventor or co-inventor; most of
the patents relate to GPS."

*E-mail: ruw...@stcloudstate.edu

**E-mail: rha...@navcomtech.com

http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html

"Hatch's proposed alternative to special and general relativity
theory, Modified Lorentz Aether Gauge Theory (MLET), agrees with
General Relativity at first order but corrects many astronomical
anomalies that GRT cannot account for without ad-hoc assumptions, such
as the anomalous rotation of galaxies and certain anomalies in
planetary orbits. In addition, the force of gravity is self-limiting
in MLET, which eliminates point singularities (black holes), one of
the major shortcomings of GRT. One of the testable predictions of
Hatch's theory is that LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational
Wave Observatory, will fail to detect gravity waves. As of July 2007,
this prediction stands. (30)"

"30. Frey, Raymond E. LIGO: Status and Recent Results. [Online] July
27, 2007. http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/P/P070079-01.pdf."

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6204&start=0

"Evidence V: GPS Satellites"

"Post by Edification » Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:35 am"

"My research indicates that the Global Positioning System was
developed by the U.S. Department of Defense to provide a satellite-
based navigation system for the U.S. military. It was later put under
joint DoD and Department of Transportation control to provide for both
military and civilian uses. This system consists of about 24
satellites which orbit the Earth at an altitude of about 20,000km and
at a speed of about 14,000km/hr. Atomic clocks on global positioning
satellites are accurate to about one nanosecond (billionth of a
second). (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/
gps.html)
A weaker gravitation field effects the operation of the atomic clocks
that are on board the GPS satellites. With less gravity at such a high
altitude, all moving parts of any clock manufactured on the surface of
the Earth are lighter and hence have less friction to overcome. Hence
at such a high altitude the clocks run slightly faster, by about 45
microseconds per day. This factor cannot be attributed to “general
relativity theory”, no more so than to Newton’s law of gravitation."

"Secondly, the atomic clocks on board GPS satellites appear to run
slow by about seven microseconds (millionths of a second) per day “in
direct proportion to their speed with respect to the Earth’s center.”
This is what is called the Sagnac effect as applied to the rotating
Earth, and has nothing to do with, in fact contradicts, relativity
theory. (Kelly, Alphonsus G. PhD Challenging Modern Physics, 2005, p.
95) If there were three GPS satellites orbiting the Earth in a row and
in an easterly direction along the equator 1,000 miles apart, an
electromagnetic (radio) signal sent from the middle one to the other
two would reach the rear one first because that one is moving towards
the middle one (c-v), while the first is moving away from it (c+v).
Similarly, because the Earth is rotating to the east, also, such
signal would reach a receiver on the Earth’s surface to the west
sooner than it would a receiver on the Earth’s surface to the east."

"Hence the clocks have to be adjusted by 45-7=38 microseconds daily."

"The DoD, DoT and several international organizations govern the
synchronization of clocks by GPS satellites. For political reasons
they disseminate the propaganda that the adjustments that have to be
made to the atomic clocks aboard GPS satellites are explained by
relativity theory time dilation and general relativity theory.
However, as we have seen, this is not the case. And this propaganda is
picked up and repeated on website after website and book after book on
relativity. In the above cited reference, Kelly spends a whole chapter
on this subject. Adjustments do have to be made to the atomic clocks
on board GPS satellites, but such adjustments are not “relativistic”,
have nothing to do with Larmor or Big Al's time dilation, or general
relativity theory."

"Ronald Hatch is a former president of the Institute of Navigation and
current Director of Navigation Systems Engineering of NavCom
Technologies. He has spent his whole career as a leader in satellite
navigation systems, is one of the world's foremost experts on the GPS
and holds many patents on GPS-related hardware, and probably has more
money than Cincirob."

"Hatch agrees with Kelly. In a two-part 1995 paper Relativity and GPS,
he states that the observed effect of velocity on the GPS clocks flat
out contradicts the predictions of special relativity. (Boerner,
Rochas “The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics,” 2003,
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_supr.htm#CITEHatch2 citing Hatch,
Ronald “Relativity and GPS,” Part I, Galilean Electrodynamics, 6, 3,
pp. 51-57, 1995 and Part II, Ibid. 6, 4, pp. 73-78, 1995) And in a
2004 paper, after careful analysis Hatch concludes that the
application of relativity theory to the atomic clocks on board GPS
satellites “is clearly incorrect.” (Hatch, Ronald “Those Scandalous
Clocks” GPS Solutions, (2004) 8:67-73, p. 72)"

[kmarinas86]

On Feb 16, 10:10 pm, kmarinas86 <kmarina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It has been observed by scientists of Tohoku University in Japan that
> a gyroscope rotated at high rotational speeds in a direction identical
> to that of motions generated by the Earth's Coriolis forces in the
> Northern Hemisphere (where the experiments took place), produced a
> reduction in the effective mass which was observed when the gyroscope
> was dropped. The spin axis of a such gyroscope, if project towards the
> interior the earth like the lines protruding through the surface of a
> bar magnet, indeed align with the spin axis of the earth. Critics have
> explained this as an artifact by assuming the effect could not
> possibly exist, according to the current mainstream theories of
> physics.

Typo correction:

The spin axis of a such gyroscope, if projected* towards the interior

the earth like the lines protruding through the surface of a bar

magnet, indeed aligns* with the spin axis of the earth.

[JohnEB]

kmarinas86:

When are you going to read Vol. 2 of the GUT-CP?  It is the basis for our causal Universe. 

[kmarinas86]

Mills' Volume on Molecular Physics is unsurpassed.

One hopes that Mills can solve these equations for atoms having more
than twenty electrons.

It's hard to know if Mills' theory can be extended to more than twenty
electrons.

Going up to higher number of electrons requires significant additions
to Mills' theory.

Neutral atoms and negative ions which yet to be conquered by Mills are
in the d-block and the f-block.

[JohnEB]

kmarinas86:

Vol. 2 of the GUT-CP covers more than 97% of the chemistry important to human beings on this planet including medicine, biology, and genomics. 

By comparison, the 12 billion LHC does things that do not happen outside the LHC and are totally useless to the average person.

[JohnEB]

First LHC Winter Conference Results

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3462

[kmarinas86]

You are absolutely right about that.

I wouldn't have defended Mills' theory on HSG had I not shared the
same sentiments.

The only thing I would disagree with is the apparent finality of all
this.

I guess at this point in my life and this time in science, I should be
expecting new scientific paradigms to overtake others first every few
decades and then every few years.

[JohnEB]

kmarinas86 said:

"I guess at this point in my life and this time in science, I should be expecting new scientific paradigms to overtake others first every few

decades and then every few years."

Have you tried publishing anything yet?

[Bill]

There is an interesting book by Oleg Jefimenko called "Electromagnetic
Retardation and Theory Of Relativity." Available from Amazon. $24 new
no used. Only a couple left.

Chapters 1-5 present the basic ideas surrounding electromagnetic
retardation.

Chapters 6-11 presents the fundamentals of the theory of relativity
based *entirely* on electromagnetic retardation.

It is fascinating reading and OT for kmarinas86's questions and
thoughts.

All the best,

Bill

[kmarinas86]

Not in science. However, a few years back, I naively sent a paper to
an economics journal. They then mailed me a letter saying that my
content was "incongruous".

Since then, I decided that if I discover anything of great interest,
formal publishing in reputable journals will not be my approach.
There's too many problems with that.

I am hoping to dig even deeper into the rabbit hole than Mills. I will
show nothing for it if I don't produce a commercialized product. If I
believe my capacities are limited to my past successes, then I will
accomplish nothing. However, I will not drag such an endeavor to my
40's, which is still a long time away. Also, I do not want to ever
spend even six figures total on this endeavor. Any research I will do,
I will strive to do it on a "pauper's budget".

If I do find a new principle, I would rather have other people want to
write papers about it, than have to worry about getting my own papers
published.

If anything, I would like it to be good enough to where most of the
revenue can be given to charity.

[JohnEB]

kmarinas86:
Well, I do envy you.   The NASA Science Programs and the LHC are destroying  the current dominant paradigms based on QM.   The standard model is mostly nonsense.   As far as what is being published, the dominant paradigms will not go away.  So, now what?

[kmarinas86]

On Feb 19, 6:41 am, JohnEB <johnbarc...@frontier.com> wrote:
> kmarinas86:

> The NASA Science Programs and the LHC are destroying  
> the current dominant paradigms based on QM.   The standard model is mostly
> nonsense.   As far as what is being published, the dominant paradigms will
> not go away.  So, now what?

More metaphysics like 11 dimensions, strings, p-branes, and dark
energy.

[xxxx]

On Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:04:40 AM UTC-8, kmarinas86 wrote:

On Feb 17, 3:38 am, JohnEB <johnbarc...@frontier.com> wrote:
> kmarinas86 said:
>
> Classical Physics without General Relativity: It could be done.
>
> Why?  Do you think there is a shortage of useless physics?

>It's not just Randell Mills who thinks there exists an overabundance
>of useless physics. Ronald Hatch doesn't seem to mind questioning some
>aspects of General Relativity:

Ronald Hatch is a heavy duty crackpot. Based on your posts, so are you.