On 19 May 2014 08:14, John Ross <jr...@trexenterprises.com> wrote: > I believe Albert Einstein misinterpreted the Michelson-Morley experiment. > That experiment proved that the *measured *speed of light was always > constant. It did not prove that the actual speed of light is always > constant. I believe light travels in Coulomb grids and our earth has a > Coulomb grid that it carries with it as it moves through the Coulomb grid > of the solar system and the solar system has a Coulomb grid that moves with > it as it moves our galaxy, etc. See my discussion at page 45. >
OK, this sounds vaguely similar to what is called frame dragging in general relativity. It should have measurable consequences - I would expect light that changes velocity as it enters the Earth's Coulomb grid to be defocused, for example. > > > Do you understand how Albert Einstein explained the advance of Mercury’s > perihelion? I certainly don’t. Although I have no reason to believe that > My theory would not also explain the advance. I believe my theory explains > gravity much better than Albert Einstein did. You are right that I have > more to work with than Einstein. About 100 years of science. > I don't know the maths, but I think I understand the principle. General relativity predicts that space in the vicinity of massive bodies is curved, or non-Euclidean, like the surface of a sphere or a saddle. This will effectively change the value of pi, as defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and make the angles of a triangle sum to a value ofther than 180 degrees. You can see this on the surface of the Earth - for very large triangles, say one with corners in Kenya, Singapore at at the North Pole, the angles sum to more than 180 degrees. In the vicinity of the Sun, space is curved sufficiently that (if I remember correctly) the angles of a triangle sum to less than 180, and the value of pi is reduced slightly. Hence an ellipse - e.g. the orbit described by a planet - will be slightly distorted. Effectively there is slightly less space available for the planet to move through, so the point at which it is closest to the Sun will be slightly displaced - to where it would have been in "flat" space-time, I think (that would be my guess, at least, due to the conservation of momentum). This advances the perihelion, by a tiny amount for Mercury, but in a sufficiently strong gravitational field it would makes the orbit look like one drawn with a "Spirograph". You can visualise this (or maybe someone has done a computer animation) for a steep gravity well with space reduced to a curved 2D surface (what's called an embedding diagram I believe) in which an object is orbitting - if the mass of the central object is adjustable, you can make the well deeper and the sides steeper, and you should see the ellipse start to rotate around the centre more and more quickly as the space containing one end of it gets more and more compressed. (I've tried googling for something like this but no one appears to have done this specific animation, which imho would show what's going on with perihelion advance rather intuitively.) For an authorised (and of course much better) explanation, I recommend this book: Misner, Thorne, Wheeler - Gravitation (Freeman, 1973) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
