View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:13 am




Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
 Cellular Universe Cosmology Model? 
Author Message
Interested

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:46 am
Posts: 29
Reply with quote
Post Cellular Universe Cosmology Model?
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/AA1Aether&Cosmology.htm

the above link speaks of a Cellular universe, I have never heard of such a thing before and it was quite interesting, but as a writer of fiction and not a scientist I doubt I understood it fully so please answer a few questions as to what a cellular universe would be like.

1. He says a few times that his model goes against not just the beliefs of science but the church as well. I am not a Catholic but I am a Christian, so does this model go against God creating the universe or is it compatible?

2. The article speaks of cosmic cells 300 million light years in diameter, how big is this? Is this a universe in size or smaller like a galaxy?

3. does this theory exclude higher dimensions of space and time?

4. how much different is this than the accepted cosmology model? Is there anything else interesting I missed?

I await your replies and hope that you not only answer my questions but learn something new from this article (though you may already know all about it).


Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:51 pm
Profile
Obsessed With the Question

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:00 pm
Posts: 633
Reply with quote
Post Re: Cellular Universe Cosmology Model?
ASGARDIANBRONY wrote:
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/AA1Aether&Cosmology.htm

the above link speaks of a Cellular universe, I have never heard of such a thing before and it was quite interesting, but as a writer of fiction and not a scientist I doubt I understood it fully so please answer a few questions as to what a cellular universe would be like.

2. The article speaks of cosmic cells 300 million light years in diameter, how big is this? Is this a universe in size or smaller like a galaxy?


I assume that his 'cells' extend in three spatial dimensions. If that is true, then his cells may loosely correspond to either 'galactic filaments' or 'galactic superclusters'.

These cells of his also are about the right size to be galaxy filaments, which are the largest structures conventional astronomers recognize in our universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament
‘In physical cosmology, galaxy filaments (subtypes: supercluster complexes, galaxy walls, and galaxy sheets)[1][2] are the largest known structures in the universe. They are massive, thread-like formations, with a typical length of 50 to 80 megaparsecs h−1 (163 to 261 million light-years) that form the boundaries between large voids in the universe.[3] Filaments consist of gravitationally bound galaxies. Parts wherein many galaxies are very close to one another (in cosmic terms) are called superclusters.'


The observable universe, which is about 13.6 BLY in diameter, seems to be on average from 4 to 14 times the size of these galactic filaments. The size of the observable universe is about the inverse of the Hubble constant times the speed of light (13.6 BLY). A galactic filament is between 100 and 300 MLY in length.

It also looks to me that he is talking about a supercluster of galaxies, if anything. He says 300 MLY. Well, the Virgo Supercluster is 110 MLY. Both the Laniaka Supercluster and the Horogolium supercluster is about 520 MLY. So the cell he is talking about looks like two Virgo superclusters or 1/2 Laniaka Superclusters.

Clearly what he is talking about is far too big to be a galaxy nor a solar system. Our own Milky Way Galaxy is a mere 100 KLY in diameter. The galaxy is no where as large as he says. However, it does seem better defined than a supercluster.The solar system seems much better defined than a galaxy. It has one star and gases that extend a few LDays out. The Alpha Centauri soalr system, our nearest neighbor, is 4.4 LY away.


Please note that according to ‘conventional; astronomy (which includes the data of space telescopes), the universe becomes smoother with increasing size scale. The boundaries of the larger superclusters are even fuzzier than the boundaries of galaxies. The boundaries of the larger superclusters are fuzzier, still. So the bigger the supercluster, the less well defined it is.

It is possible that his 'cells' correspond to 'galactic filaments'. However, I do not know what if any differences there are between the conventional scientific models and his cellular model.

Of course, there are lots of assumptions embedded in this 'data'. How it would be interpreted in terms of cellular theory, I don't know.

His cells may also correspond to some 'superclusters'. Here are a few links with relevant quotes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laniakea_Supercluster
‘The Laniakea Supercluster encompasses approximately 100,000 galaxies stretched out over 160 megaparsecs (520 million light-years). It has the approximate mass of 10^17 solar masses, or a hundred thousand times that of our galaxy, which is almost the same as that of the Horologium Supercluster. It consists of four subparts, which were known previously as separate superclusters:’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horologium_Supercluster
‘The Horologium Supercluster, also known as Horologium-Reticulum Supercluster, consisting of SCl 48 and SCl 49) is a massive supercluster; spanning about 550 million light-years, it has a mass of 10^17 solar masses, similar to that of the Laniakea Supercluster that houses the Milky Way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgo_Supercluster
‘The Virgo Supercluster (Virgo SC) or the Local Supercluster (LSC or LS) is a mass concentration of galaxies that contains the Virgo Cluster in addition to the Local Group, which in turn contains the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies. At least 100 galaxy groups and clusters are located within its diameter of 33 megaparsecs (110 million light-years). It is one of about 10 million superclusters in the observable universe.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group
‘The Local Group is the galaxy group that includes the Milky Way. The Local Group comprises more than 54 galaxies, most of them dwarf galaxies. Its gravitational center is located somewhere between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy. The Local Group covers a diameter of 10 Mly (3.1 Mpc) (about 1023 meters) and has a binary (dumbbell)[1] distribution. The group itself is a part of the larger Virgo Supercluster, which in turn may be a part of the Laniakea Supercluster.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
‘The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy with a diameter between 100,000 light-years[26] and 180,000 light-years.[27] The Milky Way is estimated to contain 100–400 billion stars.[28][29] There are likely at least 100 billion planets in the Milky Way.[30][31] The Solar System is located within the disk, about 27,000 light-years from the Galactic Center, on the inner edge of one of the spiral-shaped concentrations of gas and dust called the Orion Arm.'

Those cells of his are WAY to large to be galaxies. The cells are not quite the size of a Big Bang limited universe. Of course, a steady state universe could be infinite in size.

I suppose it doesn't matter whether the red shift is caused by the universes expansion or by 'tired light'. The Hubble constant relates the distance to a galaxy with the galaxies red shift. The Hubble constant was determined by comparing the luminosity of galaxies with the red shift. So as long as the Hubble constant is correct, then the size of these large objects are correct.

The size of these things could be correct even if we live in a truly Steady State universe. So I think that we can legitimately relate galactic filaments with his cells, even if we believe there is no Big Bang. Anyway, these are the only quantitative parameters taht I can find on Wikipedia. :cry:


Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:12 pm
Profile
Board Warrior

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:00 pm
Posts: 226
Reply with quote
Post Re: Cellular Universe Cosmology Model?
ASGARDIANBRONY wrote:
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/AA1Aether&Cosmology.htm
the above link speaks of a Cellular universe, I have never heard of such a thing before and it was quite interesting, but as a writer of fiction and not a scientist I doubt I understood it fully so please answer a few questions as to what a cellular universe would be like.
1. He says a few times that his model goes against not just the beliefs of science but the church as well. I am not a Catholic but I am a Christian, so does this model go against God creating the universe or is it compatible?
2. The article speaks of cosmic cells 300 million light years in diameter, how big is this? Is this a universe in size or smaller like a galaxy?
3. does this theory exclude higher dimensions of space and time?
4. how much different is this than the accepted cosmology model? Is there anything else interesting I missed?
I await your replies and hope that you not only answer my questions but learn something new from this article (though you may already know all about it).

I registered here on anti-relativity today, it looks like it might be a good site for an Aetherist like myself, & it looks like a good site for frustrated professional scientists who don't believe in Einsteinian krapp & wish to be anonymous to protect their reputation & livelihood. But i am not a scientist, which might become obvious.

I am shocked to discover that Conrad Ranzan's DSSU cellular universe theory has never been mentioned here (apart from the present thread). It is probably the only real aether theory in existence, plus it covers the full micro & macro & cosmic & universal aspects of gravitation & mass & inertia & length contraction & time dilation & redshift etc etc. No other aether theory offers a satisfactory explanation of gravity, with all due respect to the many awesome websites out there.

Prof Reg Cahill's Process Physics has received a few mentions here on anti-relativity. It is i think the No2 must-see site (he has perhaps 40 articles that can be found with a little trouble). Cahill doesn't mention aether as such (he calls it dynamic space), however i don't think that any of Cahill's stuff contradicts any of Ranzan's.

1. I doubt that Ranzan would be happy to call his ideas models. I think that he tries to describe realities, not models. However all realities lead to even bigger & more difficult questions, especially when one tries to apply math then of course one resorts to shortcuts, ie models i guess. Re God, gods & the supernatural are silly notions. I (an atheist) would agree that Ranzan's ideas "go against God creating the universe", mainly because Ranzan says that the universe had no beginning, & zero beginning is not compatible with a creation.

3. I doubt that Ranzan believes in higher dimensions of space & time. Space has 3 dimensions. I doubt that Ranzan believes that time is a dimension, hencely he wouldn't believe in any higher dimension of time (or space)(or space-time).

4. The mainstream believes in the BigBang, with a beginning & an end, timewise (i think), or perhaps expanding for ever (not sure). Hencely the BigBang is compatible with creation by God, & is i think ok with the Roman Catholic Church & the Bible, & i think that having no end is compatible with the Bible, but i suspect that having an end is not compatible with the Bible.
Ranzan's dynamic steady state universe always was & always will be, with no overall expansion etc.
If u read all of Ranzan's writings u will certainly find lots of interesting stuff.


Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:19 pm
Profile
Online
Consumed by Physics

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:21 am
Posts: 3701
Reply with quote
Post Re: Cellular Universe Cosmology Model?
Greetings McMac,
McMac wrote:
I registered here on anti-relativity today, it looks like it might be a good site for an Aetherist like myself, & it looks like a good site for frustrated professional scientists who don't believe in Einsteinian krapp & wish to be anonymous to protect their reputation & livelihood. But i am not a scientist, which might become obvious.

I am shocked to discover that Conrad Ranzan's DSSU cellular universe theory has never been mentioned here (apart from the present thread). It is probably the only real aether theory in existence, plus it covers the full micro & macro & cosmic & universal aspects of gravitation & mass & inertia & length contraction & time dilation & redshift etc etc. No other aether theory offers a satisfactory explanation of gravity, with all due respect to the many awesome websites out there.

Prof Reg Cahill's Process Physics has received a few mentions here on anti-relativity. It is i think the No2 must-see site (he has perhaps 40 articles that can be found with a little trouble). Cahill doesn't mention aether as such (he calls it dynamic space), however i don't think that any of Cahill's stuff contradicts any of Ranzan's.

1. I doubt that Ranzan would be happy to call his ideas models. I think that he tries to describe realities, not models. However all realities lead to even bigger & more difficult questions, especially when one tries to apply math then of course one resorts to shortcuts, ie models i guess. Re God, gods & the supernatural are silly notions. I (an atheist) would agree that Ranzan's ideas "go against God creating the universe", mainly because Ranzan says that the universe had no beginning, & zero beginning is not compatible with a creation.

3. I doubt that Ranzan believes in higher dimensions of space & time. Space has 3 dimensions. I doubt that Ranzan believes that time is a dimension, hencely he wouldn't believe in any higher dimension of time (or space)(or space-time).

4. The mainstream believes in the BigBang, with a beginning & an end, timewise (i think), or perhaps expanding for ever (not sure). Hencely the BigBang is compatible with creation by God, & is i think ok with the Roman Catholic Church & the Bible, & i think that having no end is compatible with the Bible, but i suspect that having an end is not compatible with the Bible.
Ranzan's dynamic steady state universe always was & always will be, with no overall expansion etc.
If u read all of Ranzan's writings u will certainly find lots of interesting stuff.
It is good that you criticize Einstein's krapp but the problem is that there are other similarly faecal cosmologies about e.g. Lorentz's. Nevertheless what you highlight in yellow is very welcome!

The problem with aetherist theories is that they presume a transmission medium for light, the medium necessarily static and unable to cope with galaxies receding from us at over 99% the speed of light in any direction.

Hence the cell theory you mentions sounds like its past its "cell by" date! :roll:

As for Christian and creationist teachings (including the Big Bang) they are led to assert that the universe is finite or that there is a fantasy realm called the multiverse where universes pop-up & disappear as quickly as you can say ' Sir Karl Raimund Popper'! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yours faithfully
OZLOFT


Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:22 am
Profile
Board Warrior

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:00 pm
Posts: 226
Reply with quote
Post Re: Cellular Universe Cosmology Model?
OZLOFT wrote:
Greetings McMac, It is good that you criticize Einstein's krapp but the problem is that there are other similarly faecal cosmologies about e.g. Lorentz's. Nevertheless what you highlight in yellow is very welcome! The problem with aetherist theories is that they presume a transmission medium for light, the medium necessarily static and unable to cope with galaxies receding from us at over 99% the speed of light in any direction. Hence the cell theory you mentions sounds like its past its "cell by" date! :roll: As for Christian and creationist teachings (including the Big Bang) they are led to assert that the universe is finite or that there is a fantasy realm called the multiverse where universes pop-up & disappear as quickly as you can say ' Sir Karl Raimund Popper'! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Yours faithfully OZLOFT
Ranzan's aether is free-range, luminiferous & gravitational, moving at up to i think 2000 km/sec in some parts of the cosmos, but say 450 km/sec at Earth, south to north, say 10 dg off the ecliptic, & say 10 dg off Earth's spin axis (cant remember) -- although for sure some aetherists cling to the old-fashioned battery-hen fixed aether (of Lorentz & Michelson & Co)(fixed to the sun i think)(of which u speak), through which the Earth orbits & spins, perhaps with some drag i think.

Re the aether being a transmission medium, yes, but not for some sort of silly waves, no, Ranzan says that light is photons, & that photons are particles, & that photons don't have ordinary mass, they have mass equivalence.

As for receding galaxies, Ranzan's cellular redshift theory is perhaps his most brilliant insight, & very easy to understand.

Re Lorentz's stuff (perhaps belonging to Voigt & FitzGerald & Poincare & Larmor), i don't understand much of it, but it firstly consisted i think of a simple transform, then later he added length contraction, then later time dilation, mostly based on a sort of fixed aether through which Earth orbited & spun, which all in effect gave us Lorentz Relativity, very similar to Einstein's Relativity. If u convert Lorentz's battery-hen aether to a free-range aether u get the modern neo-Lorentz Relativity (as Reg Cahill & others call it).

I might add that i am happy with length contraction (a fairly solid theory) & time dilation ( albeit ad hoc), but wouldn't cry if shown that they aint so simple.


Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:54 am
Profile
Online
Consumed by Physics

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:21 am
Posts: 3701
Reply with quote
Post Re: Cellular Universe Cosmology Model?
Aha! Everything boils down to your last sentence, McMac! I'll leave the ba'ery 'ens to comedians like Pam Ayres & Darwin000 etc.
McMac wrote:
I might add that i am happy with length contraction (a fairly solid theory) & time dilation ( albeit ad hoc), but wouldn't cry if shown that they aint so simple.
They ain't so simple and you should really try understanding it! Then you can cry out! Why?

Because time dilation & length contraction (TD&LC) were invented before Einstein's special relativity (SR), Einstein utilizing these theoretical constructs to boost his own claims. Length contraction was invented by Fitzgerald to justify the negative MM experiment since Fitzy believed in a universal ARF (absolute reference frame = stagnant aether) for motion.

Lorentz hijacked Voigt's Doppler Equation to misuse it such as to quantify the supposed LC; Poincare noticed his equations and decided that it applied to time too (i.e. TD). Hence the three stooges created Lorentzian Relativity, this nonsense based on belief in an ARF.

Why are TD&LC nonsense? Because both lead to logical paradoxes - not just time paradoxes but length paradoxes as demonstrated by John Callow, even though he held to Lorentzian Relativity. By invoking both TD&LC Einstein merely worsened the situation by calling the observer the "reference frame" and junking the hypothetical ARF without junking the supporting BS for an ARF i.e. TD&LC. This is why anti-relativists have to destroy not only Einstein but the hypothetical drivel invented by Moe Fitzgerald, Larry Lorentz & Curly Poincare. 8)

Yours faithfully
OZLOFT


Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:00 am
Profile
Board Warrior

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:00 pm
Posts: 226
Reply with quote
Post Re: Cellular Universe Cosmology Model?
OZLOFT wrote:
......Why are TD&LC nonsense? Because both lead to logical paradoxes - not just time paradoxes but length paradoxes as demonstrated by John Callow, even though he held to Lorentzian Relativity. By invoking both TD&LC Einstein merely worsened the situation by calling the observer the "reference frame" and junking the hypothetical ARF without junking the supporting BS for an ARF i.e. TD&LC. This is why anti-relativists have to destroy not only Einstein but the hypothetical drivel invented by Moe Fitzgerald, Larry Lorentz & Curly Poincare.....
I would like to learn more about Callow's book.
Einsteinian stuff doesn't have any real paradoxes because it doesn't have any real effects -- no real contraction, no real time dilation, nothing real -- it is all only a math model (that occasionally gives a goodish answer)(models are ok as long as they work ok).

I have never had any great thoughts or discussion re the wheel-paradox. I know that Fitzy had an idea about transverse elongation in addition to longi contraction (& u said Callow had an idea re transverse contraction).
Ranzan's DSSU includes length contraction & time dilation, so a wheel-paradox is not entirely off topic.

Anyhow, i doubt that there is a wheel-paradox in aetheric length contraction. Every cyclist in the universe feels & sees circular wheels at all times at all speeds. Because the cyclist too is likewise contracted -- eyes, retina, brain, head, body, bike, wheel, Earth & all -- all are contracted, but all look normal.

Note that here the speed is the speed of the aether-wind, which on Earth blows south to north at say 450 km/sec.
For a cyclist riding along the Equator the effective or nett aether-wind causing nett apparent contraction would vectorially include the cycle's surface speed (say 5 m/sec), plus or minus Earth's spin rate (say 450 m/sec), plus or minus the orbital 30 km/sec (if we assume that the local aether-wind was blowing perpendicularly to the plane of the Equator). So, the true shape of the wheels would be elliptical with long axis almost vertical, but the apparent shape would be circular as usual.

The 450 km/sec would make the true wheels thinner (& the cyclist etc), but as before the wheels would appear normal. Ignoring that the shape & distance of what the cyclist sees is affected by the slowness of photons, which travel at different speeds to the eye depending on the angle to the aether-wind.

I think that that covers it. I don't think that time dilation needs a mention. Except that ticking is fastest for a clock at rest relative to the aether-wind.

I might add, just because there is no paradox doesn't mean that aether & contraction & dilation are real -- or does it?? I suppose that it comes down to the definition of paradox. Perhaps anything that doesn't give a true answer, or gives a silly answer, or stinks in some way is a type of paradox.

Hmmm, wait a mo, perhaps there is a paradox for a spinning wheel. Still thinking. I will return.
Ok, due to varying true absolute velocities a wheel would have a differing true radius, & a differing apparent radius, although the overall diameter might be fairly consistent (perhaps a perfect circle). The smallest true & apparent radius would be at top, the biggest at bottom, & leading radius would be a little smaller than the trailing radius (for cyclist pedalling around the Equator, aether-wind blowing south to north).

In addition the circumference of a wheel would be contracted near top, not affected at bottom, & in between in between. This would give circumferential tensile stress near top (& an associated radial compression stress), Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction stresses if u like. The stresses are real, & ultimately failure is certain. No paradox here. Shit happens.


Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:13 pm
Profile
Online
Consumed by Physics

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:21 am
Posts: 3701
Reply with quote
Post Re: Cellular Universe Cosmology Model?
Very good reply, McMac.
McMac wrote:
I would like to learn more about Callow's book.
John Callow is a friend of mine who died only 2 years ago aged 98. He is book should be available on Amazon.

John Callow A Search for Truth in Science: a Critique of Modern Physics and a Basis for a New Theory, (1999), Frickers Publishing, Inglewood, Perth, Western Australia. His idea was that length contraction should apply transversely as well - a notion that logically follows from accepting some or all of the Three Stooges' Teachings (Fitzgerald, Lorentz & Poincare). Hence he and I disagreed over an ARF (absolute reference frame - stagnant aether).
McMac wrote:
Einsteinian stuff doesn't have any real paradoxes because it doesn't have any real effects -- no real contraction, no real time dilation, nothing real -- it is all only a math model (that occasionally gives a goodish answer)(models are ok as long as they work ok).
Ha! An unreal theory without practical application to science. :mrgreen:

But I'll let the aether-wind (implying a stagnant aether) blow as you wish it to, as you will eventually see that it does not work as it leads to its own paradoxes.
McMac wrote:
I think that that covers it. I don't think that time dilation needs a mention. Except that ticking is fastest for a clock at rest relative to the aether-wind.
The moment you bring in absolute motion (aether wind) you cannot help bringing in time dilation etc. The issue is philosophical i.e. Newton's absolute space and Aristotle's Unmoved Mover are sublimated 'materialized hypostatizations'* of God.

So I'll let the spinning wheel cycle on by too. :D
McMac wrote:
In addition the circumference of a wheel would be contracted near top, not affected at bottom, & in between in between. This would give circumferential tensile stress near top (& an associated radial compression stress), Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction stresses if u like. The stresses are real, & ultimately failure is certain. No paradox here. Shit happens.
The moment you apply Einstein-type LC to actual physical objects you get ultimate failure since you are merely applying mathematical fantasies. No paradox there. Darwin123 happens - e.g. with an angry reply to correct your 'misconceptions' by abusing me. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yours faithfully
OZLOFT

*Hypostasis is defined as "an underlying reality or substance, as opposed to attributes or to that which lacks substance". I.e. the ARF is inferred as an underlying reality or substance, but cannot be directly detected. In religious terms it refers to divine entities manifesting themselves in physical form (e.g. Pentecost when 500 people saw Jesus in physical form) or having physical effects (e.g. invoking the ARF to explain many observed phenomena - e.g. interference fringes - via unobserved 'phenomena, realities or entities' like TD&LC). :roll:

PS: I guess this will help explain why religion & philosophy are so closely tied up with SR! :)


Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:11 am
Profile
Board Warrior

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:00 pm
Posts: 226
Reply with quote
Post Re: Cellular Universe Cosmology Model?
OZLOFT wrote:
The moment you bring in absolute motion (aether wind) you cannot help bringing in time dilation etc. The issue is philosophical i.e. Newton's absolute space and Aristotle's Unmoved Mover are sublimated 'materialized hypostatizations'* of God.

The moment you apply Einstein-type LC to actual physical objects you get ultimate failure since you are merely applying mathematical fantasies. No paradox there. Darwin123 happens - e.g. with an angry reply to correct your 'misconceptions' by abusing me. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Yours faithfully OZLOFT

PS: I guess this will help explain why religion & philosophy are so closely tied up with SR! :)
Yes i think that 100% of Aetherists believe in an absolute universal time, that applies to everything all the time. And that ticking varies everywhere, depending on the aether-wind. But i don't think that ticking affects an aetheric spinning wheel paradox.

Yes the Einsteinian models do not involve reality at all -- no real change in mass etc. Luckily for Alby by inserting c into Pythagoras u get a good looking equation that sometimes gives a goodish answer.

I reckon that Ranzan is an atheist, however i reckon that a bigger % of Einsteinians believe in the supernatural than do Aetherists. But what sort of proof would settle the argument as to whose god is greatest -- Einsteinian or Aetherist or Galilean-Newtonian or ?????? Or putting it another way -- what proof proves the non-existence of any one, thusly leaving perhaps one standing.

I think i can kill the Einsteinian God. He died with the first test of the modern era. Radar scans (three radars) of Venus showed c + v. Yes, the first test of the modern era. Naturally the data is kept hidden to this very day. Wallace mentions this.
Not needed, but u can add GPS. Einsteinians have to add a correction to get good answers -- they call the correction the Sagnac Effect -- a complete lie.
And as modern science gets more accurate to umpteen places, Einstein stinks more & more -- should have been buried long ago.


Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:46 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 9 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.