TAB 11

RELATIVITY VERSUS CELESTIAL MECHANICS

Most people don't realize that Celestial Mechanics has explanations for all the phenomena physicists explain using Relativity Theory. In fact, Relativity Theory was first derived in the context of Celestial Mechanics, by the famous French mathematician Poincare in the late 1800's. Einstein arrived at the same results by a different approach several decades later. In the early 1900's when Einstein was doing his best work, there were literally thirty experts in Celestial Mechanics who were his equal intellectually; if not smarter. . . These brilliant men were deriving applications beyond Relativity Theory long before physicists ever heard of the word - and we've been ahead of the curve ever since!

We're the mysterious "dark force" that astronomers say is causing all the objects in the Universe to move apart at an accelerating rate. Sure, they're moving apart when studied in the context of Relativity Theory. In the much more structured, mathematically exact science of Celestial Mechanics, the Universe is stable - it's the speed of light, "c" that varies. If physicists have recently managed to slow light down to zero velocity, how can any rational person assume that it's velocity is fixed at the other end of the spectrum?

Be that as it may, there are many nice things about Celestial Mechanics. It is much less abstract ~ you will see that 90% of the material on the Two Body Problem is basic geometry and trigonometry, and the rest is first year calculus. Celestial Mechanics is also far more generalized and with LOTS of room for more elaborate theories. We're still working on the Three Body Problem (which has no solution in closed form); I have some material on the Ten Body Problem (i.e. the Sun + nine planets); and there are also some comments on the Many Body Problem, which reduces down to the equations for an incompressible fluid. (This was proven over 100 years ago and is generally accepted by all astronomers.)

Celestial Mechanics shows that space acts just like a fluid at velocities on the order of the speed of light, not like Relativity's brick wall. This is quite obvious in solid state physics, which studies electric current that goes at a high percentage of the speed of light. Relativistic affects have never been observed in electric circuits; hence the "Relativity Barrier" does not exist either physically or mathematically. As an example, satellites in Low Earth Orbit exhibit relativistic affects in their ninety minute orbits; yet, electric current going around the world in a second, has no relativistic component. What more proof do you need?

Electric current is the flow of electrons, each one going a little distance before it releases its charge to the next electron. They all move in a "conduction band" at near the speed of light. Does electric current going across a continent exhibit exponentially increased resistance, as Relativity says it should? No. Does the wire get much, much heavier, as Relativity says it should? No. Does the wire heat up - dissipating most of the electron's mass as energy - as Relativity says it should? No. Are scientists well aware of this paradox - do they strive to silence anybody who dares to speak of it? Yes.

Finally, there is the great victory that proved Relativity was better than Celestial Mechanics, Relativity's prediction of the precession of Mercury's perihelion. Consider the following table,

Planet Calculated Observed

Mercury 43.03" 43.11"

Venus 8.63 8.4

Earth 3.84 5.0

Mars 1.35 0.0

Jupiter 0.06 0.0

You can see that the "Calculated" correction by Relativity is not as accurate as everybody says, and in fact it gets worse as you go out from the sun. Relativity is based on the conviction that gravity propagates at the speed of light, a constant. However, this shows that the speed of light is not constant.

________________________________
your banner could be here

© 2004 WH Clark