Fwd: AW: Relativity+



Subject: Re: AW: Relativity+
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:48:17 EDT

Interesting discussion! There is plenty of similarity between the two theories, Duffield and ECE, and only minor differences. I look forward to receiving the book. We are agreed that relatively simple logic can be used to refute the standard model quite easily. For example none of the Big Bang metrics stand up to scrutiny, neither do the black hole metrics. I think that we can come to qualitative agreement with John Duffield by mentioning that there are large observable masses at the centres of galaxies, but not infinite. In papers 49 and 118 I offer a new explanation for the cosmological red shift in terms of simple spectroscopy of the type I used when a Ph. D. student (see early Omnia Opera papers on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) ). On the issue of mass I have taken a rather conventional line to date – but it seems to be satisfactory when compared with data. ECE has of course been compared with data in many ways. On the issue of photon mass, the Einstein / de Broglie /Vigier School hypothesise that photons do not travel at c (the tired light hypothesis). This has been around for almost a hundred years, since Einstein postulated photon mass circa 1906. Finally in respect of the potential as mentioned by Ray Delaforce, the ECE hypothesis is that potential is the tetrad within A(0), which is primordial. Neither potential nor field is regarded as “primal”, they are both aspects of Cartan geometry. Stephen Crothers has shown oin many ways that the standard ideas of black holes are incorrect.

Very interesting discussion!


%d bloggers like this: