Recent Discussions

The interferometer compares in real time and the signals have started from the source at different times but arrives simultainously. By moving the detector the length of the light path is changed instead of light speed. One light path is increased just as much the other one is decreased, therefore NO second order term. We get: L(1+v/c)/c-L(1-v/c)/c=2Lv/c^2 The common description: 4 times area times angular velocity is correct only mathematically, but is not physically motivated, since no light exists in the enclosed area. Without Einstein's theory Sagnac effect is easily explained. The effect is TRANSLATIONAL and can therefore (as Wang has stated) be generalized and valid for a straight line too. SRT is not proved wrong by this, but proved not necessary in this case. The linear interpretation can be united with Sagnac corrections in GPS when time stations on ground are compared. PS. Ian MacCausland has proved SRT wrong by logical reasons. See his NPA 2012 article called Reviewing the riddle of relativity. DS. Best regards_________________John-Erik Persson

David: Right. The idea that the universe is expanding was always silly. Now we know why: the assumption that c was constant. Aether deniers, like Einstein, have no medium for light. That is why they have to objectify light motion as enigmatic massless particles or wave-particles. In UCT (www.universalcycletheory.com), we speculate that aether is densest where baryonic matter is rarest. The miss-named ?gravitational redshift? supports this. When light is emitted from celestial bodies, it enters regions in which the aether/baryonic matter ratio increases. Light velocity, like all wave velocities, is a function of the density of the medium. The regions between galactic clusters would have the densest aether and the highest light velocity. Thus, 10 cycles at 1.1c would have wavelengths 10% longer than 10 cycles at c. As Hubble always suspected, most of the galactic redshift is a function of distance travelled through intergalactic regions. The Doppler Effect still occurs, of course, but it would simply be a function of the motion of the source, not its distance from the observer.

David, I didn't realise that there was such a body of criticism of special and general relativity, I'll follow that up. That is quite interesting about no mass increase in accelerated particles. I have always noted the massive contradiction with the variant to Standard Model with 3 neutrino 'flavors' with each having mass, yet supposedly travelling at the speed of light. Tried link to your paper, didn't work but will try again and read when I have time, very late here in Canberra (4.15 am), I need to get some sleep. I appreciate the fact that NPA members are an open-minded community of dissenters. Really needed, the mainstream seems to be digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole, and I suspect a crisis is coming in not to distant future, so we need to have alternative theories (mine included of course) out there. Rupert

If you believe special relativity to be correct, than you have no problem. Be aware that a large majority of the NPA has shown both special and general relativity wrong including there is no mass increase observed in particle accelerators, and Dr. Eward Dowdye of NASA has shown general relativity to be also incorrect and that light bends because of the corona of the sun, not because of general relativity. But again, we respect all opinions in the NPA and you are welcome. Just be awre that members in the NPA are not afraid to refute each other and in the end, that is a good thing. Welcome!

David, Thanks for you comments. I have assumed that neutrino's exist, but only of one type, effectively a 'sterile' neutrino, arguing that the other flavours are simply carrying quantised momentum deriving from the decays they derive from. My theory accepts the basic tenets of special and general relativity, though places a different intepretation in regard to general relativity's treatment of gravitational fields, that it is not a 'warping' of space-time but simply that photons are affected by gravity to the extent of their mass equivalence. This can be modelled as a warping of 'space-time', but in my theory time is being affected by gravity due to gravity's effect on photons. I have not questioned the existence of neutrinos as you do, taking it on good faith that they exist, based on the original experimental method of detection through momentum being carried away. I, and of course mainstream particle physics, could well be wrong in that regard, and you are right, only time will tell. Regards Rupert

Exactly!! David, you hit the nail on the head! The redshift observations are good, however, they are grossly misinterpreted when considered as evidence of a Big Bang. You asked: "In other words, is it a different explanation than expansion?" Yes. The neomechanical explanation is that redshifted galaxies indicate that the speed of light varied in the distant past, because the density of the aether medium was different than it is now. By considering the "observable universe" as part of a microcosm that we call the Local Mega Vortex, then the Local Mega Vortex should be expected to evolve -- just as every other microcosm does. Consequently, the redshift observations, along with the "dark flow" observations form NASA and along with the spiral galaxy rotation distributions from Mike Longo (professor emeritus from Michigan), sere as strong evidence that the observable universe is rotating -- and part of a massive, large-scale vortex. The beauty of the Local Mega Vortex Theory is that all of the evidence is coming from conventional astronomers and physicists! Some links associated with the dark-flow observations and Longo's spiral galaxy distribution ratios follow..... Dark flow refers to the synchronized movements of all galaxies within a large area of the sky. During 2008, a team of NASA researchers discovered this unexpected motion. [Kashlinsky et al., 2008] Since then, a trio of independent astrophysicists confirmed the dark flow. [Watkins et al., 2009] More recently, another team of NASA researchers expanded the study and reconfirmed the discovery. [Kashlinsky et al., 2010] Now, cosmologists must integrate dark flow into their models of the universe. Kashlinsky, A.; Atrio-Barandela, F.; Kocevski, D.; Ebeling, H.; [2008]. A Measurement of Large-Scale Peculiar Velocities of Clusters of Galaxies: Results and Cosmological Implications. The Astrophysical Journal, 686: L49?L52, Oct 20, 2008; Amer. Astron. Society. Kashlinsky, A.; Atrio-Barandela, F.; Ebeling, H.; Edge, A.; Kocevski, D., [2010]. A New Measurement of the Bulk Flow of X-ray Luminous Clusters of Galaxies. Astrophysics Journal, (2010), 712, L81-l85; arXiv:0910.4958v3 [astro-ph.CO] 11 Mar 2010. A different team of researchers who confirmed the NASA claim.... Watkins, R.; Feldman, H.A.; Hudson, M.J., [2009]. Consistently Large Cosmic Flows on Scales of 100 h?1 Mpc: A Challenge for the Standard ?CDM Cosmology. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 392, Issue 2, pages 743-756. In a paper entitled Detection of a Dipole in the Handedness of Spiral Galaxies with Redshifts z~0.04, a research team headed by University of Michigan physicist Michael Longo found that more galaxies rotate in a counter-clockwise direction than clockwise. The upshot was that 7% more galaxies rotate in a counter-clockwise direction than clockwise. In the June 9, 2011 edition of Physics: University of Michigan, Carol Rabuck discussed the significance of Longo?s findings: ?An excess of one type [of rotation] over the other would be evidence for a breakdown of mirror symmetry, or, in physics speak, a parity violation on cosmic scales.... Longo estimates the chance that the excess could be a cosmic accident is something like one in a million. The effect extended out to distances over 600 million light years. ?If verified, this data would be extremely important because it is almost universally accepted that on sufficiently large scales the universe is isotropic (no special direction),? said Professor Longo. If spiral galaxies tend to have their rotation axes aligned in one direction, it means that there is also a preferred direction in the universe. This violates another tenet of astrophysics that assumes the universe has no special direction or is isotropic.? [Rabuck, 2011] Longo, M.J., [2011]. Detection of a Dipole in the Handedness of Spiral Galaxies with Redshifts z~0.04. Physics Letters B, Volume 699, Issue 4, 16 May 2011, Pages 224-229. Rabuck, C., [2011]. An Alice-in-Wonderland Universe? Physics, Univ. of Michigan, June 9, 2011. http://www.lsa.umich.edu/physics/news/ci.physicistmichaellongodiscoversanapparentcosmicparityviolationthu9jun2011_ci.detail Retrieved July 15, 2011. For a balanced view, the following Wikipedia article gives criticisms of the dark-flow measurements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow Website for Mike Longo: Professor Emeritus at Michigan http://www.lsa.umich.edu/physics/directory/emeritus/ci.longomichael_ci.detail. Importantly, Longo found a completely different way than the NASA team in showing that the observable universe is spinning -- just like the other cosmological spirals that we observe!

Rupert, I appreciate your working on a new theory. There are two problems I see: one, the neutrino does not exist. It was postulated because special relativity was applied to radiation. The particle should be called the relatrino. Since special relativity is wrong, no neutrino. The detectors are detecting muons and other such things. Second, there is not "ultimate" particle. There are always smaller particles ad infinitum.

This paper proposes that gravity is caused by non-isotropic, heterogeneous distributions of aether particles throughout the universe. The Gravitational Pressure Gradient of a massive body describes these divergent aether distributions. The activity and density of free aether particles are greatest in the so-called vacuum of intergalactic space; they are least where the density of baryonic matter is greatest. This gradient is analogous to the atmospheric pressure gradient that surrounds Earth, but in reverse. Aethereal pressure increases with distance from the center of Earth just as it does for all celestial vortices. Ordinary baryonic matter consists of aether complexes that limit the free motion of aether particles, displacing them and producing what is, in effect, a sort of vacuum for aether. In addition to displacement, neomechanical interactions involving the absorption and emission of motion cause decreases in the activity of proximal aether, resulting in the pressure gradient. The upshot is that gravitation is a universal, but local phenomenon. This proposal is consistent with the assumption of infinity, which underlies neomechanics and the belief that there are no true pulls in nature, as recognized in Newton's laws of motion. It avoids the problems of non-local causes of gravitation conjectured by Le Sage. In particular, it is consistent with data showing the moon's lack of gravitational aberration?the free aether particles that produce gravitation need not travel from the moon to Earth. The layering produced by a rapidly rotating celestial vortex during its early evolution pushes baryonic matter toward its axis. Satellites stay in orbit because distal aether pressure is greater than proximal aether pressure. The theory also predicts that the velocity of light is a function of aether density, in tune with gravitational and galactic redshift measurements.

Results from a precision gravimeter experiment in China 1997 demonstrate an assumed gravitational shielding present before and after the eclipse. No (or very small) effect is demonstrated during the eclipse. This is explained by Bob as caused by a very masive corona around the Sun. An alternative interpretation is presented here by means of a compensating effect due to gravitational shielding effecting central parts of our planet. Just before and just after the eclipse gravitational shielding effects exist in peripheral parts of our planet, but not in the gravimeter mass. A more detailed description of this idea will soon be present on my personal NPA page. Regards _____________ John-Erik