P. 1
Universities Asleep at the Switch

Universities Asleep at the Switch

|Views: 12|Likes:
Published by Andres Peterson

More info:

Published by: Andres Peterson on Jun 03, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/03/2012

pdf

text

original

Mach’s Principle versus an Expanding Universe

(You can have one or the other but not BOTH.)

MILO WOLFF emphasizes the importance of Mach’s principle
and I am in complete agreement with Milo on this.
Please note the following Britannica 1997 CD article.

Mach’s principle, in cosmology, is the hypothesis that the
inertial forces experienced by a body in nonuniform
motion are determined by the quantity and distribution of
matter in the universe. It was so called by Albert Einstein
after the 19th-century Austrian physicist and philosopher
Ernst Mach. Einstein found the hypothesis helpful in
formulating his theory of general relativity – i.e., it was
suggestive of a connection between geometry and matter –
and attributed the idea to Mach, unaware that the English
philosopher George Berkeley had proposed similar views
during the 1700s. (Berkeley had argued that all motion,
both uniform and nonuniform, was relative to the distant
stars.) Einstein later ABANDONED the principle [emphasis
added] when it was realized that inertia is implicit in the
geodesic equation of motion and need not depend on the
existence of matter elsewhere in the universe.

It is the opinion of this writer that Einstein’s biggest
blunder was in listening to Lemaître and ABANDONING Mach’s
principle
because inertia is NOT implicit in the geodesic
equation of motion. Dr. Milo Wolff has proven that. He’s
proven Mach’s principle.

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

- 90 -

Inertia is the result of quarks binding with other distant
quarks in the fixed stars and gravity is the result of quarks
binding with other closer quarks in nearby objects.
What Einstein correctly saw was that you cannot have both
Mach’s principle and an expanding universe.
So he gave up Mach’s principle to obtain Lemaître’s
expanding universe. It was a bad exchange. It messed Einstein
up for the remainder of his life.
Yes, we did have a Big Bang but it was not the Lemaître-
Gamow type scenario. The CMBR or Cosmic Microwave
Background Radiation comes not from a tiny expanding
explosion but from a beta decay:

http://education.jlab.org/glossary/betadecay.html

…in an already gigantic neutron only universe. This beta
decay
scenario arrived because this was, once upon a time, an
all neutron universe for many hundreds of billions of years in
which Mach’s principle (inertia caused by the surroundings)
also existed just the same as it does today.
Studies of the CMBR prove that this explosion had to have
happened all throughout the entire universe at the same time
therefore proving some sort of a universe framework had to be
there first before the explosion. Therefore, the CMBR proof
doesn’t jive with what these universities are claiming
happened.

The proton is the stablest of the tri-quark entities today but
long ago, before the fine structure constant changed to what
we now have, the neutron was stable for possibly many
hundreds of billions of years. But as the fine structure
gradually changed enough then came a massive beta decay
changing half the now unstable neutrons into protons and
electrons via beta decay. Inside newly created atoms

Universities Asleep at the Switch

- 91 -

(hydrogen at first) the other half of the original neutrons were
safe and again stable as long as they remained within an atom.
This gigantic beta decay left us with the CMBR.
What Saul Perlmutter’s group discovered, will eventually
end enthusiasm for this red shift based expanding universe.
I know this is being redundant but I must go over what

was in Chapter 3.

What no one seemed to realize was that if, via the
Principle of Equivalence, gravity cannot be discerned from an
accelerating contraction then gravity’s equal and opposite
repulsive force, Einstein’s original cosmological constant,
cannot be discerned from an accelerating expansion.
And accelerating it is because this is what Saul
Perlmutter’s group found:

http://panisse.lbl.gov/public/sauldir/saulhome.html

An expanding universe is one thing but an accelerating,
expanding universe is a horse of a different color. It’s an
entirely different animal: In fact, it is nothing but the
equivalent of the repulsive half of gravity’s attractive force
inside of a steady-state universe. Believe it or not.
But real accelerating is impossible. While there may have
been a PAST beta decay force there to cause some sort of an
expanding universe, certainly there is NO present force, which
would be needed for such a continued accelerating to this
expansion.

Therefore a real accelerating, expanding universe is not
here but what is here is this repulsive force equal and opposite
to gravity that Einstein predicted. This was his original
cosmological constant. This repulsive force between all those
millions of stars gives us light dispersion similar to a
diffraction grating. This is what causes the red shift.

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

- 92 -

According to the Principle of Equivalence, you cannot
discern this cosmological constant repulsive force from an
accelerating EXPANSION just the same as you cannot discern
the equal and opposite gravitational attractive force from an
accelerating CONTRACTION.
As I stated earlier, we would have Ashmore’s paradox:

http://www.lyndonashmore.com/ashmores_paradox.htm

…with an expanding universe. But we don’t, so this has to be
a steady-state universe.
We have a redshift because of dispersion: Ultraviolet light
is undergoing MORE dispersion than red light via Einstein’s
original cosmological constant REPULSIVE FORCE that it is
forced to pass through. This starlight must pass through all
these individual repulsive force fields by which all the stars
are repelling themselves from each other.
This dispersion of light:

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~teb/optics/java/dispprizm

…in a glass prism is exactly the same via the many repulsive
forces
that keep all the molecules in the glass apart. Multiple
repulsive spots between stars and molecules of glass is not
much different from the multiple spots in a diffraction grating.
The law is that one cannot use the simpler special
relativity with these force fields. One must use general
relativity with its tensor math.
Even university presses have stated that Einstein’s
cosmological constant exists in the microcosm. I’ve read that
one many times. So if you say you can still use special
relativity in the above cases then as the judge I am going to
say to you, as many judges have, “Ignorance is no excuse for
the law.”

Universities Asleep at the Switch

- 93 -

So let’s proceed using the tensor math of general relativity.
So this redshift that Lemaître thought was showing us
expansion is really being caused by repulsive force (more
space being created [tensor math]) DISPERSION. You cannot
change the spacetime interval and avoid light DISPERSION.
Hubble was right to warn about thinking this universe was
expanding because of the red shift that he discovered.
The repulsive forces between the stars, holding them apart,
are many and spread out as you consider the manner that light
has to come through each of these separate repulsive force
fields that surround each star.
Thus, we must have a red shift via Einstein’s original
COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT repulsive force causing dispersion.
This would leave us with only red light. This would give us
the same time dilation that we presently observe with
supernova and it totally avoids changing the energy, thus the
momentum, of a photon, which we know doesn’t happen
because distant objects are not blurred.
Einstein’s tensor math tells you that the repulsive force
between both the glass molecules and the stars is being caused
by more space than average being generated in both those
places. Thus the spacetime interval is being changed, in
millions of different spots, in both those places as well. This
has an effect on light. Look at how the multiple gratings in a
diffraction grating affect light. The count of stars and the
count of molecules in the glass prism are high just like the
same molecular count in a diffraction grating.
It’s hard to believe that Einstein, who practically invented
the tensor math of general relativity did not see what his own
tensor math was telling him about the red shift. The tensor
math tells us that more space than normal is being created to
give a repulsive force.
Then in a prism and near the stars, via all those millions of
spots where that repulsive force is the strongest, the faster

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

- 94 -

vibrations will be dispersed the most beginning with the
fastest frequencies. Because repulsive force between stars is
the same as repulsive force between molecules, this works the
same way between the various molecules in a glass prism as it
will between all the various stars in space. First the highest
frequency violet colors are dispersed, next blue, then green,
then yellow, then orange. The lowest frequency of red makes
the best of it when trying to come straight through whereas the
others are all dispersed and bent away from the straight path
far more.

So Einstein’s own tensor math was telling him how the
prism worked and what was causing the red shift and he never
caught on, even though he himself had discovered one of those
repulsive forces (force between the stars).
And this is ironic.
This is ironic indeed.
This same frequency dispersion, by the way, is the reason
that quarks find it hard to attract in the high density area of the
tri-quark nuclei.

You’ll even see some of this with present science but you
certainly will see everything with this brand new kind of
science using the laws Ampere gave us.

- 95 -

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->