‘Elliptic’ orbits and mercury perihelion advance as evidence for absolute motion

[lidal]

In the previous two posts on Special and General Theories of Relativity of Electromagnetic Fields, an alternative, more intuitive and logically consistent explanation for the absolute constancy of the speed of light has been presented, and a possibility of the new theory to explain those evidences and experiments that are claimed as confirmation of Einstein's relativity has been given.

 

We know that the whole theory of Einstein's relativity is based on the two postulates. The second postulate (the light speed postulate) has already been divorced from Einstein's relativity.

 

This post is about the first postulate. In this paper, the incorrectness of Galileo's invariance principle will be presented by the two evidences: non circular planetary orbit and Mercury perihilion advance. Therefore,as Galileo's relativity is incorrect, Einstein's relativity is also wrong.

 

Thus the two foundations of Einstein's theory of relativity pass away.

 

 

 

Open the attached PdF.

Elliptic orbits as evidence for absolute motion final.pdf

Elliptic orbits as evidence for absolute motion final.pdf

[John Cuthber]

I got this far before it was aparently nonsensical

"The concept of relativity of motion was first introduced by Galileo. In his principle of invariance he

stated that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames. He used the Galileo’s ship thought
experiment in his argument, among other arguments."

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Please stop posting your non-mainstream material in the science section. It belongs in speculation, so it has been moved there.

[D H]

I got this far before it was aparently nonsensical

"The concept of relativity of motion was first introduced by Galileo. In his principle of invariance he

stated that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames. He used the Galileos ship thought

experiment in his argument, among other arguments."

Actually, that's just about the only part of this paper that isn't nonsense. What he wrote there is spot on.

 

There is a solid warning that nonsense is about to ensue prior to the bit you quoted. That warning: "Electrical engineer". I don't know why, but that field is a fast breeder reactor‎ for crackpots.

 

The nonsense itself doesn't start until later on in the abstract, "Absolute motion can be detected by observing change of the law of gravitation in our reference frame." (No it can't.) This was followed by the utterly laughable "Despite the advance of physics, the cause for the elliptic shape of planetary orbits is unknown at a fundamental level todate (sic)."

 

 

To lidal: Explaining the elliptical shape of planetary orbits is fundamental fare for a sophomore or junior physics major. It's a good idea to learn the very, very basics before starting commencing with tilting at windmills.

[John Cuthber]

It's the weird use of a pronoun that got me worried.

"The concept of relativity of motion was first introduced by Galileo...He used the Galileos ship thought"

 

( The missing apostrophe didn't help)

[D H]

Well, yeah, his grammar is off. Then again, so is his understanding of physics. Elliptical orbits aren't understood? Seriously?

[swansont]

Well, yeah, his grammar is off. Then again, so is his understanding of physics. Elliptical orbits aren't understood? Seriously?

 

It gets worse: "Abstraction is not allowed here"

 

One not being allowed to think is a requirement of the argument.

 

And it gets worse after that. File it under "not even wrong"