There has been a lot of "hush-hush" hubbub recently suggesting that astronomers have finally found "gravitational waves," as supposedly predicted by Relativity. I've noticed that Relativity tends to predict a lot of things after they've been discovered...
Larson, on the other hand, predicted a vibratory component to gravitation and published it his book, Basic Properties of Matter (1988) in Chapter 24, Isotopes, under the concept of a "gravitational charge." All charges are vibrations and vibrations form waves, so "gravitational waves."
In the Reciprocal System, atoms are not composed of protons and neutrons, but 2-dimensional, scalar rotation. Conventional atoms, the "material" ones, have that rotation in the time of the "time region," conventionally known as the "configuration space" of the atom. The speed of this rotation determines that atomic number, with an effective mass of twice the atomic number. Carbon, with an atomic number of 6 has a rotational mass of 12.
Mass can extend beyond the rotational mass by the accumulation of neutrinos in the time region, adding 1 amu to the effective mass, per neutrino. This addition is called "gravitational charge" by Larson, and accounts for isotopic mass, such as Carbon-14 (basic rotation of 12 + 2 captured neutrinos = 14).
Very heavy atoms, such as Uranium, have a substantial gravitational charge. Uranium has a mass of 236 but an atomic number of 92, accounting for only 184 amu, meaning that there are some 52 captured neutrinos adding a vibrational component to the gravitational effect.
If you examine the rumors of gravitational waves, they all center around supermassive objects, such as the theoretical "black hole." All these objects, on a stellar level, would have a substantial gravitational charge to them, so that is what is probably being picked detected.Forums:
Please point me to articles or discussions about what happens to a particle as it approaches the speed of light. LHC and other colliders seem to confirm mass increases which RS says is not so and instead that "force" decreases? Are the measurements deceiving or invalid? Why?Forums:
I've been going through Bahram Katirai's book, Revolution in Physics, where he revives ether theory ideas to explain many of the frauds perpetrated by Einstein (he includes about 100 pages on how Einstein stole his work from other researchers, particularly Henri Poincaré (the first guy to come up with E=mc2). I find the book very interesting, because if you substitute "time" for "ether," you end up with many of the concepts of the Reciprocal System, including an independent charge mechanism (Katirai's samareh) and that atoms are rotating systems. But since Katirai's premise is from the cosmic sector side of things, he fills in many of the gaps that Larson never addressed.
Katirai, like Larson, is also a "common sense" observer. Most people will discount what their senses tell them, if it conflicts with their beliefs. Larson and Katirai are the opposite. When they encounter something that doesn't make sense, they investigate it, rather than ignore it, to try to understand it and incorporate it into their world views.
One of the more interesting analogies he makes is his return to the "waves in ether" theory of light, comparing "pressure waves in air" (sound) to "pressure waves in ether" (light). In particular, the observation that it is the medium (air, water, ether) that determines the propagation speed of waves. When a train passes, the Doppler shift causes the approaching frequency to be higher (higher pressures in air, compressing waves), and the departing frequency lower (lower pressure spreads waves).
In Nehru's model, light is a birotation being carried by the progression. A change in frequency would require the addition or subtraction of units of motion (angular velocity) to each photon. The Doppler effect, however, seems to invalidate that frequency model because the effect is a property of the linear speed of the source and observer--not a property of the photon, itself.
So what I am wondering today is: what if frequency is a pressure differential, and not a property of the photon?Forums: