Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / January 2005

You should be banned from sci.physics. You cut the following from my
response without notice, which is illegal. It directly answers your
puling petitions for testable predictions.

This is what you cut:

"I point out for example on page 8 where the Pound Rebka redshift test
is in trouble, the relativity mathematics leading to a double
redshift. That's because a clock in the well would radiate slow by z,
the photon at the top would be fatigued by another z, and then read by
a clock with a rate of 1,  for a total shift of 2z, using the
assumption of constant c.
With Dual Space, the ray starts slow from the well, does not change
frequency or energy on the way up, but c increases out of the well,
stretching the wavelength once for a 1-z shift.

Dual Space also implies that energy does not fall in gravity, whereas
in relativity mass and energy are held interchangeable. You really
think you can get mc2 out of m by some as yet undisclosed method.

Here's a falsifiable prediction: there is about a 10% difference in
the summation of velocities on page 6. If you had read any of it you
would be crowing about it. Have somebody test it.

Here's another one: DS shows how E = mc2 in two steps (read about it
in Eq. 8) so that total energy is always 1/2mc2 as in Eq. 9.
The first 1/2mc2 is cost of extraction of electrons and has a 100%
re-stocking charge i.e. you can't deal with the first half. mc2 is
simply the effort required to create m. Relativity just says it's so.

Here's another one: our universe is flying through time In Espace at
c, otherwise you can't solve the Pioneer 10 anomaly.

Read the paper and try to soak something up. Dont look for an
exposition of relativity by another route. From the ground up, this is
a different theory with the same results but understandable, see the
GPS analysis Fig. 2 and the table.

But all this persiflage is wasted if you think my theory has anything
to do with your precious standard model, which is not more than an
adjustable parts list."

You are a miserable inconsequential twit, but I thank you for being a
willing punching bag. I can't snip anything of yours, because there's
nothing there to snip.

John Polasek

If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay

SNIP

Unauthorized snip, Aaron. Why would you cut the following from my
message when it directly impacts your next objection:

"I point out for example on page 8 where the Pound Rebka redshift test
is in trouble, the relativity mathematics leading to a double
redshift. That's because a clock in the well would radiate slow by z,
the photon at the top would be fatigued by another z, and then read by
a clock with a rate of 1,  for a total shift of 2z, using the
assumption of constant c.
With Dual Space, the ray starts slow from the well, does not change
frequency or energy on the way up, but c increases out of the well,
stretching the wavelength once for a 1-z shift."

It directly contradicts your next statement about energy falling in
gravity. Look at the text: if energy of the photon is reduced climbing
out of the well, then the computed redshift will be double the proper
value.
In Dual Space the energy of the photon  is unaffected by gravity,
retaining its original value up to the top,  the increase in c giving
it a 1z redshift.

I would appreciate a citation on that. The Pound Rebka and Brault
experiments have no less than a 5% uncertainty. Please describe the
method. You should realize of course that energy is always merely a
derived quantity as a scalar product, so it can't really be measured,
especially to 3 parts in a trillion.

This is clearly a very difficult experiment to expect any precision,
and any experiments will of course be viewed through the prism of
relativity  because "that's all there is" and of course that's all
that could possibly be. Can you cite experimental data that can  prove
the relativity formula  within a few percent?

No, because this is new physics and because I am compressing several
chapters of development into a paragraph. Our universe came not from a
Big Bang, but by extraction of electrons from the quantum vacuum. Our
sensation of time comes from the universe moving at c through the QV.

We both know the Hubble constant has a wide error band since its
derived from luminosities of galaxies at unknown distances. It is not
clear that it is accelerating. I think that claim is a temporary
patch.

Why not read the website, study it a little and you might be
pleasantly (or just as good, unpleasantly) surprised.

John Polasek