11 years, 8 months ago
Comments are always welcome
Comment on the Mercury Perihelion Solution
I found this site using google and i want to thank you for your work. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site! Thank you!
Sorry for offtopic
Comments are always welcome, as well as solid criticism. I tried to tie down the theory the best I could without the benefit of criticism...:)
In the Mercury Perihelion Prequel
, I reviewed the why Paul Gerber's work was dismissed. He started with a velocity dependent formula for which he couldn't provide a convincing derivation.
I reproduced his formula when I derived the Gravitation force for a non-rotating Sun..:) In fact, Gerber's formula is a limiting value of my more general formula
Of course, nobody derives the Gravitational formula from first principles in any theory other than in this one. Remember that this theory is derived to explain motion, interaction, action-at-distance and does it through the Quantum Lagrangian Principle and the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Shock-Wave Universe Topology. All forces come naturally when I reconnected this theory to our Physics.
The derivation was done in the relaxed Fabric of Space condition, that is, I started the derivation using a flat local Fabric of Space.
I considered interaction between dilators where the probe dilator was moving radially with the expansion of the Universe. This happens when the local fabric of space is totally relaxed and its normal points radially- perpendicularly to our 3D Universe. This means that the force was derived as a partial derivative of the deformation of the local fabric of space from a given initial velocity(zero velocity). This is equivalent in Strict Relativity to consider the relative velocity zero while the bodies interact. Under those conditions, SR is well approximated by Newtonian Dynamics.
To recover the force for any velocity one has to use the Lagrangian Force equivalent, which we used on the Mercury Perihelion Prequel. For the case of Gravitational Lensing
, the velocity amplitude (c) doesn't change. The only change is its direction. Under those conditions, the partial derivative was fine.
This is means that Paul Gerber's ansatz equation for a velocity dependent Gravitation was OK. He just did not have a understanding of the WHY...:)
As I mentioned, this theory passed the basic tests a theory has to pass to be discussed (Gravitational Lensing, Mercury's Perihelion, reproduced all the necessary forces and provide an alternative description to the remaining forces strong and electroweak).
There are a few remaining blogs I want to write but have been too busy to do. One of them has to do with our interest in traveling within our galactic neighborhood. This blog will disclose a new propulsion mechanism which is good enough for short travels.
To go further there is a way to create macroscopic Fabric of Space waves which would lead to light speed traveling of massive bodies. I know that this is forbidden by Relativity..:) of course, it is..:) but that is a just an artifact of the Newtonian choice of Force definition
It is not that massive bodies cannot travel at the speed of light, it is that due to how one chose to interact them makes their interaction ineffectual to accelerate them to the speed of light. I will propose another mechanism to create motion.
I wrote about Newton's, Galileo's blunders...Of course, I've never meant to minimize their contribution... Just a provocative hindsight consideration aimed at creating a debate..:) As I always mention, nothing would be done without the work of our predecessors, luminaries..and no good theory can be built without strong debate and criticism.
Please, always feel free to compliment but also accept your need to criticize it. It is OK...:)
Share on Facebook