Solar Fission

<b>[Solar Patroller] "I also oppose relativity theory ..."</b>

This is nit-pick in some ways (because it is such a common thing), but it is important in other ways. There are a number of theories of relativity. In order for one to talk about a particular theory of relativity one must say more than "I oppose relativity theory".

On the other hand, saying you oppose relativity theory could mean you oppose all theories of relativity. But basic observation shows us that things like velocity are in fact relative so you would be wrong.

<b>[Solar Patroller] "TVF, of course, also opposed SR ..."</b>

As you correctly quote here, Tom was not opposed to relativity theory. He was opposed to a *specific* theory of relativity.

But even Tom did not <u>always</u> use a qualifier when speaking of relativity.

My point is ... try to remember to be specific about such things, but don't beat yourself up when you forget. Or when some *ssh*l* rubs your nose in it

LB

<b>[Solar Patroller] "[Jacot] put forward the notion that planetary orbits were in spirals, not circles or ellipses ..."</b>

If this is supported by observation, it is a rather small effect. One can speculate about the rate-of-loss of solar mass (accreted mass less radiated mass) as a cause for such a minor spiral effect. And the "planetary orbit measured from perihelion to perihelion being 4 min., 44 sec" is more properly an aspect of Earth's periastron drift than any secular increase in the Sol-Earth distance. (Are you sure about that value? It seems gigantic for either process. I suspect some other explanation.)

<b>[Solar Patroller] "... not sure if TVF believed that there's no vacuum ..."</b>

Time for another nit-pick. The concept of "vacuum" needs to be qualified in much the same way as the concept of "relativity". Tom did believe in a "classical" vacuum, but did not believe in an "absolute" vacuum. A classical vacuum considers only electrons, protons and neutrons. An absolute vacuum encompasses all particles, even those we cannot presently detect.

***

I'm also not sure if Tom knew of Jacot's theory when he devised his fission theory, but he did know that others had proposed similar ideas before him.

I did mean I'm opposed to both SR and GR so I did not slip up. However, it may not be exactly right to say TVF was against SR. The issue is a little confusing, but it seems that it might be more appropriate to say he wasn't against relativity itself but interpreted it (both SR and GR) differently. People like Michael Strauss and LaViolette are much more thorough-going and unequivocal in their opposition to it. I could be wrong in following them more as I'm not an expert in physics even tho my father was a physics professor in an engineering school.

But you say there is relativity in velocity. I imagine this refers to Newtonian-Galilean relativity which is included in SR whereby absolute motion can't be detected.

I looked thru my physics textbooks, and yes, like u say, ther is relativity iin velocity n it seems to be a separate issue from relativity in motion.

<b>[Solar Patroller]"I did mean I'm opposed to both SR and GR so I did not slip up"</b>

You obviously knew what you meant. But the rest of us have only what you actually said to guide us in understanding what you meant.

***

TVF was in fact against SR and said so explicitly on many occasions. He favored a theory that is a modern updating of the old (and falsified) Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). He referred to this update as Lorentzian Relativity (LR). I tried to get him to change the name to Ordinary Relativity (OR) or Euclidian Relativity (ER). Both names are very descriptive and the name OR kind of pokes fun at SR, but he could be stubborn at times and would not budge on this.

LR postulates that time has conceptual existence rather than physical existence. As such, physical processes (things with physical existence) can have no direct effect on it. Clocks, on the other hand, actually do have physical existence. Other physical process can have a direct effect on them (change them). For example:
<ul><li>pendulum clocks are sensitive to temperature and gravitational force</li>
<li>atomic clocks are sensitive to speed and gravitational potential</li></ul>
A side effect of this postulate is that the speed of light is not a physical limit. And because of this, LR has none of the paradoxes that make SR so easy to snicker at.

But the speed of light probably is a physical <u>barrier</u> in the same/similar way that the speed of sound was (and actually still is). It may be a serious challenge to bypass it.

Thanks for clearing that up, too. The chapter on relativty in TVF's book was somewhat ambiguous. But why not oppose also GR since it promotes a concept of gravity that he disagreed with?

I agree that time is a concept n I gather he was saying the time dilation is in the measuring instruments n not time itself. And if you analyse the matter enough it can be said everything has a conceptual existence rather than a physical one, but that is the purlieu of metaphysical science.