Great paper on "Subquantum Kinetics" Possible UFT

[Pierrrr]

Ahh ok. I'll definitely look into that. I'm not familiar with the Pioneer anomaly math/hubble constant anomaly perspective.

Here is the conformal gravity (aether) math related to the Pioneer anomaly paper I had read:

The Discovery of First-Degree Relativity and the Refutation of Gamma
by Miles Mathis
...
However in recent decades there have been a number of discrepancies found in the use of the equations on data from both accelerators and space satellites. Physical Review Letters published several papers on the satellite problem (the so-called Pioneer Anomaly) of the Jet Propulsion Lab a few years ago. It was never solved to everyone's satisfaction, using the mechanical analyses offered. I became convinced at that time, and remain convinced, that the problem is in the basic equations. So I have returned to the original derivations of nearly a century ago. I have concentrated on the algebraic derivations, ignoring the tensor calculus that was imported into the problem later. The tensor calculus is a math designed to handle a large number of variables, using matrices and other time-saving devices. It is not a good math to use for simple conceptual problems, concerning only a few linear variables. The tensor calculus unnecessarily makes a very dense theory even more difficult. It is supremely difficult, for instance, to properly analyze the basic conceptions of the theory, which are spatial and temporal, when you don't have a time variable, labeled as such. Tensor calculus may be a necessity in the field equations of General Relativity, but in Special Relativity it is more math than the job requires. This is especially true in the initial derivations, where the velocity has no angle to the x-axis, and there are no other mathematical complications.
In its inception, the math of Special Relativity was algebra. Except for one step, Einstein's 1905 derivations1 of both gamma (γ) and the addition-of-velocity equation were algebraic. Even this one step of calculus was unnecessary, as Einstein proved in the appendix to his book Relativity, where he did without it. This is not surprising, since in both places the problem concerns linear uniform motion.
After studying Einstein's various algebraic derivations closely for several years, I am now in a position to prove that his final equations, though close enough for much prediction, are not correct. He ignores one very important step, and this step completely compromises the math. Nor was this step uncovered in later emendations. All current derivations yield equations for two degrees of relativity. First-degree relativity is ignored. This paper is my announcement of the discovery of First-Degree Relativity. I rush to add that in correcting Special Relativity, I am not proposing a return to classical mechanics. Nor am I questioning the basis for time dilation. This paper is in no way a refutation of Relativity, as a whole, nor a dismissal of the need for transformation equations. I simply offer subtle corrections to the existing mathematics. My transformation equations match Einstein's, in form and theory, but they provide small differences at high speeds and distances. This solves the Pioneer Anomaly, as well as several other outstanding problems.
http://milesmathis.com/adp.html

Part One - The Primary Error
Part Two - Another Central
Part Three - The Third Error
Part Four - New Transformation Equations
Part Five - Second-Degree Relativity
to chapter 6 - http://milesmathis.com/five.html

 

[trendsetter37]

A couple things. Special relativity and inertial reference frames postulates that motion is relative; implication being that an absolute reference frame does not exist. Keeping that in mind, recent data in several astrophysics papers have to use fudge-factors i.e. dark matter and energy to get their observed data to fit what the theory would predict regarding the expanding universe.

But, they were doing this because they had no other theory (or kept blinders on to other opinions) that predicted a closer fit between theory and what they were observing (formation of galaxies and their distributions). Electric universe proponents, as well as subquantum kinetics advocates, have developed models that fit and even predict the data observed while simultaneously explaining phenomena on the quantum, microscopic, and macroscopic level. This should be the aim. To fit your model to the data observed not create ad hoc explanations so that your hypothesis doesn't break down. This only further complicates things. Which is moving away from a UFT not closer.

Ether physicist, realized that this was the case and that special relativity was actually incorrect, but other physicist, like Einstein, would not accept that and instead decided to create or justify their steadfastness in adhering to Einstein's view by making excuses for the inadequacies of their theories ability to conform to what was being observed.

Q: (A) Okay. UFT. This is one of these things that I don't know what it is good for, because the Wave will erase everything and make everything new. Yet, it is in me, so let me ask. I don't know what it is good for, but I want to do it. Einstein was working on his UFT for like 30 years. Maybe more. He was changing his methods. At some point, did he realize that he found a solution? During all these thirty years, was there a point where he came upon the right solution?


A: Yes, but sadly, his solution for UFT largely erased TOR.

Q: (A) Once he found this solution, did he reject it because it erased TOR?

A: No. His progenitors sealed it, in order to keep intact the status quo.

Q: (L) His progenitors? Isn't that your parents?

A: Other definitions apply. [A source from which something develops.]

Q: (A) Can we have an idea of which year Einstein found the solution that erases TOR?

A: Sure, it was 1938.

Q: (A) According to what I know, between 35 and 38 there was a period in which Einstein published nothing. In 38, he published a paper with Bergman which was a revival of Kaluza Klein theory. That was exactly 1938. So, I guess that was the paper that was close.

A: Can you obtain a copy?

Q: (A) Yes, I have a copy.

A: Good!!! Clues abound within.

That is one of the main reason's I decided to take another route. It served as a clue in my studies. It turns out that there are/were many more scientist out there that held views contrary to Einstein. However, they were largely unknown but ironically may have had much more to say about the explanation of the world we live in; also these opinions and views were backed more by empirical experience than theoretical Calculus. That follows the pattern of our twisted society. Scientist with an incorrect understanding of close-minded view of reality will of course be more well-known or prominent within the scientific establishment.

...Universe Expansion Acceleration = Ua = 8 x 10^(-8) cm/sec^2 (known from cosmology). Pioneer Anomaly Acceleration = Pa = Ua (observed and explicitly stated by Anderson et al in gr-qc/0104064)...

Since the Static-Mass Sun Ordinary Gravity acceleration is G x Msun / R^2 where R is the distance to the Sun, the Phase Transition for Pioneer should take place at the distance from the Sun such that Pioneer Acceleration x (1/alpha)^2 = G x Msun / R^2 which is given by 8 x 10^(-8) x 137 x 137 = 6 x 10^(-8) x 2 x 10^33 / R^2 so that R^2 = 15 x 10^32 / 137^2 cm^2 and R = 0.028 x 10^16 cm Since 1 AU = 1.5 x 0^13 cm R = 2.8 x 10^14 / 1.5 x 10^13 = 18.7 AU or roughly 20 AU so that THE ORBIT OF URANUS IS ROUGHLY THE PIONEER PHASE TRANSITION. Note that this ties together a lot of loose ends in conventional astrophysics the Pioneer Anomaly, the Angular Momentum – Mass Relation, the Angular Momentum – Magnetic Dipole Relation by using Conformal gravity-magnetism stuff...

Note that beyond the Pioneer Phase Transition Boundary the Pioneer Anomalous Acceleration is constant at 8 x 10^(-8) cm/sec^2 (graph adapted from one similar to Fig. 2 of gr-qc/0411077 by Nieto et al) as is consistent with its fundamental Conformal Cosmological nature related to the Dark Energy Expansion of our Universe.

Nothing changes between different sectors of the PTB it seems.

This prompted me to investigate the "other" side and I found the math and theory were less complex and the beauty of it's simplicity was fascinating (Occam's razor?). I think this may be a clue as to what is unfolding but I came to the conclusion that studying Einstein and his progeny would lead down a path that's full of obfuscation. And that may be by design.

Also Bluelamp, this is just my opinion, but I would like to proffer this. The expansion of the universe from a central explosion would extrapolate that the concentration of matter and galaxies would diminish. However, that is not the case. Galaxy continue to evolve and gain more mass. Seemingly indefinitely. I have plenty of charts of the data if you would like to see them.

And lastly a single explosion and continuous expansion is largely a linear concept. More and more data are point to cycles and an open system cosmology. As above so below. The observation that temperature isn't even linear and repeats itself was one of the last straws for me.

Yes there are explosion or impulses rather and yes they happen continuously, in periodic cycles. From each and EVERY central core be that an atom, star, star cluster, or galaxy. What if these impulses and the center of stars creates matter continuously. Being induced by the subquantum flux. This would fit better than galaxies colliding to become larger. The computer simulations cannot do this with the parameters they impose. Collisions would also create more disorder not the orderly growth that is observed. They realize this but stick to their collision notion.

What about the case of the interior of planets and stars periodically heating and cooling? This is to be predicted in subquantum kinetics but up until now mainstream physics was left in the dark as to why this event would take place. Again adhering to linearity opposed to cyclic behavior.

 

[John G]

Yeah things like galaxy simulations and heating/cooling of planet/star interiors could be conformal gravity/aether/vacuum math related. Colliding galaxies though are still nice from an observed galaxy shapes point of view and WMAP data for the dark matter/cosmological constant (dark energy)/ordinary baryonic mass ratio fits with a conformal gravity/aether universe evolution view with a mostly constant baryonic mass. I guess the idea for Tony Smith is that things get fixed via gravity calculations and dark energy/vacuum effects rather than via extra ordinary mass.

 

[Archaea]

This is especially true in the initial derivations, where the velocity has no angle to the x-axis, and there are no other mathematical complications.

I haven't read this guys stuff yet, but this is the conclusion I came to when I was looking at this stuff. This then lead me to the conclusion that the speed of light isn't a barrier that can't be passed, but rather an observer can't observe something travelling faster than the speed of light relative to itself, and even that isn't true in all circumstances. I also came to the conclusion that time and space dilation can be measured by the Doppler effect.

Here's a thought experiment, an EM wave source has a clock, and the peaks of the waves coincide with the ticks of the clock. An observer moving at a relative velocity towards the EM wave source will see the peaks squeeze together in accordance with the Doppler effect, and as a result, they will see the clock tick faster. On the other hand, an observer moving away from the EM wave source will see the peaks move further apart and as a result will see the clock tick slower.

This resolves Einstein's twin paradox, and it also can be used to explain time dilation in a gravitational field, because the gravitational red/blue shifts act in the same way. I then thought that maybe by creating an EM wave which looks like it's being red/blue shifted might create a gravitational style force. So my field equation would look something like:

G = k df/dr

Where G is the gravitational field, f is the frequency of light, r is the distance, and k is some scaling constant. I think this might be done by having two EM waves where one is slightly shorter than the other. I also found this in the C sessions, which is what made me think that this idea might not be as bad as I fist thought. :P

From Session 25 September 1999 (http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25695.msg305780.html#msg305780):

Q: Okay. And, beneath this 4th density reality, there is an etheric reality; and the etheric reality consists of 5th density. Okay? Beneath the 5th density reality, there is the 6th density reality which I am trying to describe in terms of geometry. That geometry is the underlying, essential thing about ideas, natures or aspects of concepts that come into being in our material world; that geometry is the essential nature of things. Am I getting there? But, beyond this geometry, from what does the geometry emanate? I know you are going to say something like "The One," or "Seventh Density," but I would really like to have a concept because I can't get beyond this. Even if it is inadequate, from what does geometry, which expresses as gravity, emerge?

A: Not in sync.

So the two EM waves wouldn't be "in sync." :)