Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

Agreed with GJE, the photon mass is 1.04 ten power – thirty five kilograms for a velocity of 2.122 ten power eight metres per second at closest approach to the sun in light deflection by gravitation. It has been assumed that the angular frequency of visible light is of the order 2 ten power fifteen radians per second. The photon mass is much higher than in the standard model. This is the mass from the de Broglie Einstein equation. It tends to give support to the theory by GJE and Trevor Morris that the photon is similar to the electron. The de Broglie Einstein equation for energy can also be applied to the electron of course: the famous wave particle dualism.

Sent: 28/06/2014 12:32:25 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Velocity of the Photon at Closest Approach to the Sun

Just as the velocity of light reduces when light passes through a solid/ liquid / gas. It is only a constant c in a vacuum. Evidence for photon mass was always there. There are no massless quanta of energy.

Sent from Samsung Mobile

This can be calculated using the de Broglie Einstein equation used in Compton scattering as in UFT158 ff and later papers:

E = gamma m c squared = h bar omega

It is known that at closest approach the velocity v of the photon is 2.122 x 10 power 8 metres per second. For visible frequency of omega = 2 x 10 power fifteen radians per second the photon mass is:

m = 1.04 ten power – 35 kilograms

close to previous estimates. Note carefully that this is again based on the precisely correct description of precession, light deflection and gravitational delay given by x theory. I will now proceed to write this into UFT264.

I can forward this question to Steve Crothers, who might be best placed to give the Robitaille radius. I am very happy with this result because it is self consistent. I will emphasize this in the paper, UFT264. From no on I will politely ignore all claims about the Einstein theory and so should all Baconian scientists.

In a message dated 28/06/2014 11:42:13 GMT Daylight Time writes:

How does the variation in this result compare with the variation in estimates of the radius of the sun, given the different models there are of its structure?

On 28 Jun 2014 11:39, <EMyrone> wrote:

As I was beginning to write up UFT264 I noticed that the photon velocity can be calculated at closest approach using the fact that the radial part of the velocity vanishes at closest approach, leaving the angular contribution to the orbital linear velocity, the familiar textbook:

v = omega R0 = L / (mR0)

As I was beginning to write up UFT264 I noticed that the photon velocity can be calculated at closest approach using the fact that the radial part of the velocity vanishes at closest approach, leaving the angular contribution to the orbital linear velocity, the familiar textbook:

v = omega R0 = L / (mR0)

There were 1889 hits from 384 distinct visits, spiders from gogle, MSN, and yahoo. Essay 25 Fallacy of Indeterminacy 978, Auto1 426, Auto2 76, F3(Sp) 365, UFT88 106, Llais 86, Crisis in Cosmology by Stephen Crothers 62, Book of Scientometrics 98, CEFE 49, Evans Equations by Laurence Felker 63 numerous (Sp., translated by Alex Hill), Principles of ECE 26, Englynion 25, Auto Sonnets 25 to date in June 2014. Federal University System Brazil general; Colombian National University UFT166(Sp); Andalucian Institute of Astrophysics of the Spanish National Research Council general; University of Poitiers general; Official Portal of the Government of India AIAS Fellows; Department of Physics Tokyo Metropolitan University Foundations of Physics Leaflet; Canon Corporation Japan UFT227; Serbian National Research and Education Network and Serbian Academy of Sciences Rebuttal of ‘t Hooft by Gareth Evans; University of Wales Cardiff Injustices in Academia, ECE Devices, Wales and Welsh Affairs. Intense Interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for June 2014.

Usage Statistics for aias.us aias.us

Summary Period: June 2014 – URL
Generated 27-Jun-2014 12:45 EDT

1) Eq. (15) of note 264(5) power half missing.
2) Eq. (12) of Note 264(7), epsilon = 0.

Looks like it, just to ignore UFT225 means a complete lack of scientific integrity, which is also indicated by the way ECE was distorted and attacked and censored. On top of this comes all the threats and so on. Those have naturally made people very cautious, and have alienated decent scientists. There are university bureaucrats who do not know how to write a letter and for many years have studied nothing, having a total contempt for scholarship, denying their own existence. Looks to me like the Roman Empire just before it collapsed, riddled with decadence and corruption and weird cults, run by slave labour, burdened by taxation. All Roman Emperors except three were assassinated. After that, civilization hung on by a thread in places like Iona and Skellig Michael, and Bangor Tewdos (Seminary of Theodosius, Llan Illtud Fawr, Llantwit Major). Wild and peaceful places in which great art and literature flourished. Bangor Tewdos was an international university in the sub Roman era, its foundation goes back eight hundred years before Paris or Bologna, the oldest universities in western Europe.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 27/06/2014 13:45:53 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: The electron g Factor

They are not measuring what they think they are measuring much of the time. They pull things out of the “noise” to support ideas and make nonsensical claims.

Sent from Samsung Mobile

Have a read of the very heavily studied UFT85 and see if you can accept this claim after that. You have excellent judgment and a lot of experience. I don’t read journalistic stuff like this, because I know it is almost bound to be wrong or vacuous. I have an uneasy feeling about the entire physics system as well as the physics itself. In UFT85 huge discrepancies were found in standards laboratory data, which are all interlocked. As you know I used to work in a standards laboratory, the National Physical Laboratory. Another point is that CERN has deliberately and cynically ignored the refutation of UFT225, which is deeply disturbing, and has made a superluminal claim that turned out to be artifact. Teh Higgs boson does not exist for many reasons, for example photon mass as you know. On top of that the standard physicists have distorted and tried to censor ECE theory and have not admitted that the Einstein theory is wildly incorrect. So they have alienated themselves from a large sector of the scientific community. This is very clear from eleven years of feedback. In dealing with them I tend to say: “Grandmother, what big teeth you have”, i.e. infinite caution.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 27/06/2014 12:50:24 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: Most precise measurement of electron mass made

A 13 fold improvement in the mass of the electron!! Standard Physics at its high precision best!!

Sent from Samsung Mobile

This is very promising. I will start to write up Sections 1 and 2 today or tomorrow.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 27/06/2014 12:21:44 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Proceeding to Write Up UFT264

Will start on it this weekend. As you suggest, may make it into a full report / review (there are a lot of results). Will see how it goes and where we decide we can stop.

Best, Gareth

Sent from Samsung Mobile

Many thanks again, very interesting plot, the singularity shows up in the mid region, and this is the clearest demonstration to date that the old Schwarzschild metric does not work at all. Not just wrong, but singular, results. So the obvious thing to do is to base the new c theory directly in experimental results. This was the method used for the B(3) field theory, it was based directly on the inverse Faraday effect as you know.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 27/06/2014 11:29:58 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 264(8): Proof that the Einstein Field Equation Does Not Give Observed Precession

I checked the note, the results are correct.
for plotting I first brought the x factors into a consistent form. Since alpha depends on M, both cannot be chosen indepenently. With the definition of alpha the x factor of x theory is

and the Einsteinian x factor can be brought into the form

which is similar to that of x theory, except a square root and that alpha squared is replaced by r(r-alpha). This effects a pole for r=alpha. This can be seen from the plot of theta(r) in the protocol. Both curves come close at the boundaries of r but differ significantly by appearance of the pole.

Horst

EMyrone@aol.com hat am 27. Juni 2014 um 10:46 geschrieben:

This proof is the result of several years of continuous thought and refinement and is a completely conclusive proof that the Einstein field equation does not the observed planetary precession, its most infamous result. The correct force law is that of Leibniz, first given in 1689, with t replaced by t – r0 / alpha. The 1689 Leibniz force law is the famous Eq. (1), which he wrote down more or less instinctively as far as I can see. The attractive part of this law is attributed to Newton, but was really found by Hooke. My ancestral cousin John Aubrey pointed this out (online “Brief Lives”). The centrifugal force in the Leibniz law was not really understood until Coriolis in the eighteen thirties. The Einstein force law is Eq. (11), and it is shown that it is impossible to force this to give the correct force law (3). Complete disaster strikes for the Einstein theory at the turning point r = alpha, when x becomes infinite. The observed x is very close to unity in all observed precessions in the universe. So not only is Einstein wrong, he is completely singular. I can ask co author Horst Eckardt to make one of his famous numerical analyses of these results. The problem with the dogmatists is that they will not accept such a blatantly obvious and simple result such as this, so their subject is a stalactite in Dan yr Ogof, just opposite Craig y Nos Castle. The dogmatists will do anything at all not to accept reality, and will do anything at all to stick to a failed theory (dogma). This is the exact opposite of the scientific method, suggested by my ancestral cousin Francis Bacon. There is nothing in this note that cannot be understood at O level. Of course there are certain aspects that are much more advanced than O level, but the algebra of this note is O level, and of course can be checked by computer for any human slip that may occur. This is always done in the ECE papers.

264(8).pdf