Edwin

The problem is that the units don't match up. Wavelength is a length, and 1/c is time per length.
Try doing his calculation in different units:
I will use light-seconds as my units of distance, and seconds for time, so c=1 light-second per second. Then the minimum wavelength possible is 1/c = 1.
Very, very different from 0.3 x 10^-10.

MortalWombat

You don't look a cm over 20 to me. Must be those vertical stripes.

BigAl71350

Edwin,
Dr. Day's explanation of the equation:
"I know that they are not the same units. That is why when I rewrote it for
the article I rephrased it and explained it in more detail so that this would not be an issue.

A frequency of a wave cannot exceed its rate of propagation. One wave must
move before another can form. Which is to say, an oscillator forming waves in a medium cannot oscillate at a rate faster than the rate of wave
propagation. An oscillator making electromagnetic waves, therefore, cannot
oscillate at a rate greater than the speed of light. This sets the limits to
the physical world at c and 1/c. The first is light's velocity through space, the second is the theoretical limit to its frequency.
Frequency relates to the wavelength of light by the equation f = l/c. If
the wavelength is closed, we can assume that there cannot be fewer than one
wavelength per cycle. This means that the frequency cannot be greater than
3 X 1010 cycles per second, or the time of a cycle less than 0.33 X 10-10 second.
There is, therefore, a threshold below which light waves cannot exist. The limit of that frequency is the reciprocal of the rate of propagation, or 1/c. It is the time of one frequency multiplied by the speed of light:
d = ct. And the span of that frequency is 0.33 X 10-10 cm, the same value of the
radius for the wavelength to which the electron converts.
If that threshold is reached, the wave closes on itself. Its circumference
becomes the measure of the wavelength, the radius the gauge of its
frequency. No electromagnetic wave can be smaller. Motions below that limit
are closed. Experiments with accelerators bear this out. Whenever an electromagnetic wave is forced by collision to a higher frequency
across the barrier, it condenses to particles."

For those Big Bang enthusiasts I would suggest checking out the following web site for a discussion of the theoretical and observational underpinnings of the theory and how they have been underminded to the point of collapse:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/cosmology.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/cosmology.html</a>

As to a prediction that Day's theory suggests I refer all to his theory of the formation of matter (particle formation). [/QUOTE]It is accepted almost as an article of faith that the neutrino does not have a charge. [quote] Day's theory of the Photonic origin of matter requires that the neutrino not only has a charge but there is a neutrino and antineutrino.

At a lecture recently at the Astrophysics department of Brandies University the lecturer did talk a little about left and right handed neutrinos.
Long quote from Mr. Day regard this (all and more can be found at his web site under the 'Particle Structure' Section:

The Neutrino

The neutrino has always had a credibility problem. It was originally hypothesized to fill an energy gap, and nothing more. Unlike other particles which are readily characterized by mass and charge, the neutrino seems to have neither. And once the theories for particles were formulated, there seemed no need to bestow the neutrino with properties. As a result, the neutrino has never really been regarded realistically. Physicists use it to balance their equations, but they have no rational concept of what it is or where it came from.

The neutrino, however, is a truly unique creation. By the very nature of its smallness it is able to transform electromagnetism into the strong nuclear force and to serve as the seed of particle formation. The strength of attraction depends on distance. Electromagnetism is limited by the size of the proton and electron. Inside a photon or particle, however, where distances are less, the same electric field at close range becomes the strong nuclear interaction that bonds the structure of particles.

It is accepted almost as an article of faith that the neutrino does not have a charge. This is the way Pauli defined it 64 years ago. Since the net charge of particles produced after emission was the same as the original particles, he assumed the particle to be uncharged. This seemed to make sense, since had the particle possessed a charge it would have been expected to produce ions as it sped along and would have been detected in a Geiger counter or a cloud chamber. And in fact, it was not detected.

Because of its extremely small size, the neutrino has tremendous penetrating power, passing through a block of lead several light years in thickness before encountering a particle of matter. Considering then that ionization takes a collision, or at least a near miss, for ionization to occur, in retrospect it is hard to imagine why the neutrino might collide with sensors in a detector and leave a trail of ions.

There is then an important known conversion that is significant to nature of the neutrino. When electrons and positrons encounter in mutual annihilation they do not always revert back to photons, they sometimes transform to a neutrino and antineutrino.

e- + e+ = v- + v+

If the neutrino is a collapsed electron or cyclized photon, then it seems it retains the charge but loses the mass. There should, therefore, be two types, the neutrino and antineutrino, characterized by the two charges. But particle physics does not limit the neutrino types to two. It is believed that as many as six types of neutrinos exist. Since this contradicts the proposed scheme we need to ask, "Where did we get the idea that there are more than two kinds of neutrinos?"

The issue began with the breakdown of the muon. A muon breaks down to an electron and two neutrinos. If, however, the electron family number is to be conserved, then the neutrinos must be different, and hence the neutrino and antineutrino.

m- = e- + v- + v+

The neutrino and antineutrino are presumed to be opposites, and therefore were expected to mutually annihilate if they encountered each other. But this never seems to happen. This led physicists to suspect that the neutrinos were not true opposites, that the neutrino was produced in association with the muon, while the antineutrino was associated with the electron. It seemed, therefore, that muons and electrons produced different kinds of neutrinos.

To test this hypothesis an experiment was set up in 1962 where high energy protons were smashed into beryllium atoms to produce a stream of pions. The pions broke down rapidly to muons and neutrinos. The particles were directed into a wall of armor plate 13.5 meters thick to screen out all particles except the neutrinos. The neutrinos were then passed inside a detecting device where they could interact with a neutron to form a proton, plus either a negative muon or an electron.

v + no = p+ + m-
or
v + no = p+ + e-

It was assumed that if there were only one kind of neutrino then negative muons and electrons should be produced equally. They weren't. Only negative muons were produced. To the researchers this indicated that when pions break down to muons and neutrinos, only muon neutrinos were formed, unlike the ordinary neutrinos associated with electrons and positrons.

Consider now the reactions from the photonic perspective. An electron can't just be dispatched from a neutron. It originates from a split photon or a released cyclized photon. The electron, therefore, would not be formed without an accompanying positron or antineutrino. If there had been a positron it would surely have been detected. The neutron, on the other hand, is a proton bound by a neutrino. The full equation then is where this is knocked out, the proton reforms, and a photon is created which transforms to an electron and antineutrino. The neutrino and antineutrino combine to a binary.

v- + no = p+ + g + v-
* *
e- + v-v+

To understand the equation in which the negative muon is produced we need to consider the composition of the muon. It has been proposed that it is a cyclized photon with a neutrino-antineutrino nucleus. In other words, it is an electron with a binary nucleus. The second equation then becomes:

v- + no = p+ + (g + v-v+) = m-

The only difference in the equations, therefore, is that the neutrino-antineutrino pair stays with the cyclized photon momentarily to form a negative muon before separating to form an electron. Why the muon should form in preference to the electron must have something to do with the formation and cleavage of the p photon. That issue, however, is irrelevant. With this interpretation there is no reason to believe the result of the experiment indicated the existence of another type of neutrino.

Consider now what an electron is and what apparently happens when it collapses to a neutrino. The electron was formed from half of a photon at the threshold of the photon's stability. Its electric charge is due to the directional motion of the constituent photon, its mass to the pulsing of the photon. The pulsing coincides with the frequency and generates the gravitational field.

When the electron collapses its spin increases rapidly with the decreasing size, and its electric field intensifies as it becomes more concentrated toward the smaller source. The field itself remains the same, diminishing in intensity with distance. The difference is that with the smaller particle the intensity gradient extends inwardly much farther to the smaller neutrino than was possible with the electron.

The situation with the gravitational field, however, is different. The field is due to the frequency, or pulse, of the constituent photon. When the electron collapses the amplitude of the pulse decreases rapidly, while its frequency should soar proportionally. But the photon making up the electron is already at the threshold and limit of its frequency. The frequency cannot increase. This, however, doesn't stop the amplitude from dropping to an extremely low value. And that wipes out the gravitational field.

In other words, a neutrino is a photon that has lost its pulse. Actually, it isn't completely gone, otherwise it is hard to rationalize how it could otherwise make a wave in space that allows it to travel at the speed of light. But since the size of the neutrino is 10-43 cm, and the size of the electron is 10-13 cm, the pulse must be reduced to 1023th of its original value.

The Model

There are some fundamental questions that any system for particles must resolve. Why is the proton with an equal but opposite charge always 1,836 rimes the mass of the electron? Of all the particles with mass, why should only the proton and electron be stable? For some reason the unit charge stays an unerring constant, while the mass for various particles spans a wide spectrum. The system must account for the creation of mass and charge, and show what the properties are in real terms. It should indicate why particles interact the way they do, and it should give an answer to what happened to all that antimatter that supposedly was formed when matter was created.

The system also has to account for the coupling of particles, the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons. Just as with atoms where the coupling of atoms to molecules is a consequence of atomic structure, so too the coupling of protons and neutrons should be the consequence of the structure of particles. In this way the binding "force" is a part of structure, and is as strong as the structure itself.

Particles must also have a simple structural pattern with a potential for diversity. It must be a basic geometric system where the power of expansion is in the design. Like atoms where only three particles are needed to produce over a hundred different elements, there should be only two or three different types of constituents to produce hundreds of particles. And the system has to create the properties that make possible the succeeding tiers of matter's hierarchy - the atoms and gravitational systems.

If particles are true members of the hierarchy then the character of the constituents is conveniently restricted. Mass and charge have to originate from the assembly of the particle system, yet the constituents themselves must be without mass and charge. There are only two things known to exist that are without mass and charge. They are photons and neutrinos.

There has been direct evidence suggesting that photons and neutrinos are components of particles, but physicists followed another course. If we take the facts at face value, however, then when the neutral pion (po) decays to two gamma photons, it would suggest that two photons somehow had constituted the po. When the p- decomposes to a muon and a neutrino, and the muon decays to an electron, a neutrino, and an antineutrino, then the p- must have contained two neutrinos and an antineutrino. Since the electron doesn't fit into a muon, then something in the structure of the muon must have become an electron when the muon decomposed. And when an electron and positron mutually annihilate to produce two gamma photons with the same energy, and colliding photons become an electron and positron, then in some way photons and the electron pair must be interconvertible.

Within the photon is the potential to form all the constituents of particles and the interactions which they undergo. The photon itself is an uncharged particle of opposed wavelets of electromagnetism, in balance and pulsing in a frequency as a wave traveling in space. Those same internal actions, separated, rearranged, and condensed on themselves, transform the properties of the photon to properties of the particles.

We can imagine atoms and particles as tiers of a hierarchy similar in structure but dissimilar in composition. Motion is the structural feature of both, but the two forms of matter are divided by the two kinds of motion. Atoms consist of electrons in orbital shells around a nucleus of protons and neutrons; while particles consist of cyclized photons encasing a core of neutrinos and antineutrinos. Mass of the atoms resides in the rest mass of the particles; the mass of the particles is in the relativistic mass of the photons.

We can assume that both systems are stabilized by resonance and harmonics. The orbitals of electrons correspond to integral wavelengths of the electrons, and the shells are spaced in a harmonic series expressed by n2, where n refers to the shell number and indicating values 1, 4, 9, 16... . Electrons in an atom are locked into orbit by their wavelength and move in harmony with the electrons of the outer shells. The atom, therefore, is like a bell that achieves its own resonance as it vibrates in a strictly integral number of waves.

It seems reasonable to assume that particles are stabilized the same way. There is, however, a difference between electrons and photons. With electrons the wavelength of the particle correlates with the velocity, and the velocity of electrons is a variable that can be adjusted to the respective orbital shell. With photons, on the other hand, the velocity is constant. If the photons in nested shells are to oscillate in unison their spacing has to follow a different series.

A circumference is in direct ratio with the radius. If the innermost shell consists of a single wavelength of a photon, then a photon with two wavelengths will be in a shell at a distance twice as far, and one with twice that number at a distance four times the inner radius. This series is 1, 2, 4, 8, has the formula 2(exp)n-1.

A model of this type is conceivable, except that mass corresponds to wavelength, and in this case, the circumference changes but the wavelength does not. As a result, photons in each shell have the same mass. On the other hand, if the same series is retained and a single wavelength is assigned to each shell distance, then the mass of the particle will be greater with the inner shell and decrease by half with each successive shell. The photons in all shells will then pulsate in unison.

There is now a correlation between electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. In beta decay when an electron is emitted an antineutrino is emitted simultaneously; when a positron is emitted, there is a corresponding emission of a neutrino. In the proposed model electrons and positrons stem from negative and positive-oriented cyclic photons. There is, therefore, in the structure a correspondence of negative-oriented photons with an antineutrino and a positive-oriented photon with a neutrino.

The model, therefore, consists of a nucleus of neutrinos and antineutrinos paired with cyclic photons of opposed charge orientation. The photons are in concentric shells spaced harmonically by the formula 2(exp)n-1. And the sum mass of the photons equals the rest mass of the particle.

With these guidelines and consideration of the role of pions in the dissociation of protons, the apparent structure of the proton consists of four neutrino-antineutrino pairs in the nucleus surrounded by three shells of cyclic photons in the distribution of 1+, 2, and 6. The shell energies are 268.08, 134.04, and 67.02 MeV, respectively.
p+ 4(v-v+) 1+, 2, 6 S 938.28 MeV
268.08 134.04 67.02

Shell III, the outer shell of 67.02 MeV, is the pion shell, and for the proton it contains three doublets of oppositely charged photons. Each doublet with a mass of 134.04 MeV (2 X 67.02) is the precursor of neutral pions whose measured mass is 134.96 MeV.

Since the pion shell has assigned a mass of 67.02 MeV, the size for one wavelength can be calculated: l = 1.24 X 10-4/67.02 X 106 = 1.85 X 10-12 cm. The wavelength corresponds to the circumference, so the radius = 2.94 X 10-13 cm. And this is in good agreement with the reported size of the proton.

The radius of the electron is 2.82 X10-13 cm, the radius of the proton calculated from the model is essentially the same at 2.94 X 10-13 cm. Yet the proton has a composite structure and a mass that is 1,836 times that of the electron. The model shows why they are the same size.

The size of the proton is calculated from the 67.02 MeV value for the pion shell. This gives a correct value, but since it depends on the half-mass of the pion, why should the pion have this particular mass? It seems unlikely that the pion would just happen to have this mass independently of the proton. There must be something in the structures of particles that determines it.

All particles are interrelated through their common derivation from the photon. When a cyclized photon closes on itself by internalized electromagnetism to form the electron, there is a 137-fold constriction, but no change in the relativistic mass. On the other hand, when the cyclized photon is bound by the corresponding neutrino, not only is there a 137-fold constriction, there is a 137-fold enhancement of the relativistic mass (0.511 X 137 = 70.00).

Mass corresponds to the photon's frequency, so a bonding interaction that increases the frequency, enhances the mass. The mass enhancement correlates with the 137-fold constriction and apparently results from the strong interaction of the photon with its corresponding nuclear neutrino. Since the pion is a doublet, this accounts for this particular mass. Half of the mass is the relativistic mass of the constituent photon that is derived from the same source as the electron.

The spins and electric fields of neutrinos are the same as the cyclic photon from which they originate, but because of the reduced size of the particle they are intensified as the reaction range is shortened. In other words, the electromagnetic attraction between a neutrino and a cyclic photon at the size of the photon becomes the strong nuclear interaction at a range 137 times closer within the particle 137 times smaller.

When the cyclized photons collapse they carry with them their electric fields and spins. The spin of the resulting neutrino gives it a magnetic moment that reacts with its opposed counterpart, the antineutrino. This is the weak nuclear interaction. The electric field of the neutrino, being internal and close range, behaves as a strong nuclear interaction in the same manner as for binding energy of the electron. In the case of the neutrino, however, it is the nucleus and binds the corresponding encircling cyclized photon. When a neutrino or an antineutrino is lost from the nucleus, as in beta decay, the mass due to bonding to its respective cyclized photon is converted to kinetic energy of the products.

The cyclic photons of opposite orientation form not only the electron and positron, they interact to form metastable doublets. These doublets dissociate rapidly by electromagnetic decay, but when bound to a neutrino nucleus by the strong nuclear interaction they are stabilized. Just as change in the nucleus of an atom changes the element, changing the nucleus of a particle by the weak interaction results in change or disintegration of the particle.

And there is no antimatter "lost in space". The model shows that complex particles contain within their structures opposed forms of derivatives from photons in a balance, just as the electromagnetic fields are in balance in the neutral photon. Instead of particles being formed symmetrically with their antimatter counterpart, in some way protons and electrons probably formed simultaneously from the same creative electromagnetic brew.

There is, therefore, within the dimension of the photon another order of structure and composition, comparable to that of the atom but as distant toward the infinitesimal on the other side as our world of stars and satellites is on this. The neutrino nucleus is as small in size and as distant relative to the constituent photons as the nucleus of the atom is to its encircling electrons. Having the same structural pattern the model allows not only a large variety of particles from a few components, it also provides the means for coupling and transmutation.

The concentration of energy in the hierarchical units decreases with size. Neutrinos are in the BeV range, particles in MeV, atoms in KeV, molecules in eV, and gravitational systems considerably less. These are bonding values and do not imply time and action. But if the hierarchy of orbital systems is accepted, then orbital time sets the containment of energy and can be used to define the system in terms of action. Now as we descend the hierarchy, the energy concentration successively increases with each stage and the orbital time decreases. The sizes of the system diminish proportionally. What stays constant is action.

The model shows the interconversion of mass and energy in a specific way in which matter has a distinct structural definition. The two kinds of motion - kinetic and radiant - are related through mass by the interconversion equations of Planck and Einstein. Motion is a structural feature of matter with atoms and particles on opposing sides of the structural divide, each with a respective form of motion: atoms with the kinetic motion of the electrons; particles with the cyclized motion of photons. The divide is bridged where rest mass and electric charge originate in the relativistic mass and rotational orientation of constituent photons.

There are four stable subatomic particles: neutrinos, photons, protons, and electron. Protons and electrons are the building blocks of atoms; neutrinos and photons are the basic blocks of subatomic particles. Just as only three constituents - protons, neutrons, and electrons - give rise to over 100 atoms, only three known entities - neutrinos, antineutrinos, and photons - are necessary to account for all the conceivable subatomic particles, including their antiparticle counterparts.


Best regards to all,
Peace.
Al

Steven S

You mean Day performs an experiment showing significant disagreement with the "Newtonian-Ensteinian world view" (whatever that may be)? I didn't think so.

Dead on arrival.

Steven S

Edwin

His explanation of the units not matching does not explain anything. He chooses to measure the speed of light in cm/s and gets a maximum frequency of 3e10Hz. But I choose to measure the speed of light in SI units - m/s and get a maximum frequency of 3e8Hz.

Anyway, the whole thing is wrong because frequencies of 1e27Hz have been observed (more than 10,000,000,000,000,000 times higher than his theoretical maximum).
See <a href="http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970412e.html" target="_blank">http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970412e.html</a>

Malaclypse the Younger

So Day's connection with the speed of light and its maximum frequency is simply erroneous.

It doesn't seem intuitive that the speed of propagation of a wave would impose any limit on the frequency of that wave.

Most physics classes stress including one's units in the calculation. The equation f(max) = 1 / c is insufficient. One what? We need a unit in the numerator.

If this equation is derived from the frequency equation f Hz = (w cm) cycles / (c cm / sec), then we see that the numerator represents a length measurement in the same units as one is using to express c. So this equation becomes:

1: f(max) Hz = 1 cm cycles / (1e10 cm / second)
2: f(max) Hz = 1e-10 cycles / second.

Instead of getting a maximum frequency of 1e10 Hz (cycles per second), we get a maximum frequency of 1e-10 Hz! That's one cycle every 1e10 seconds!

Perhaps he means wavelength instead of frequency:

1: w(max) cm = 1 / (1e10 cm / second)
2: w(max) cm = 1e-10 cm / second

But we have to eliminate the seconds unit to get from the right to the left. This means that the wl (max) assumes that the maximum frequency cannot be more than 1 Hz.

This can be seen by simply dropping the seconds unit from the above equation (thus making w(max) = 1e-10 cm) and plugging back into the f Hz = (w cm) / (c cm / second) equation:

f(max) Hz = (1e-10 cm) cycles / (1e-10 cm / second)
f(max) = 1 cycles / second

The mathematics underlying Day's physics are obviously incompetent. Anyone claiming to overthrow Relativity cannot show this kind of incompetence and be taken seriously--indeed, unless Day can entirely reformulate his thesis using competent mathematics, he does not even deserve the time necessary for any deeper investigation.

If Al has indeed bought all four of Mr. Day's books, he appears to have been thoroughly ripped off.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

BigAl71350

You guys are amazing. I really could care less what you think. Enyoy your ignorance. I am outta here. Peace, good luck and good riddance.
Al

Malaclypse the Younger

I'm so ashamed. "Anyone who doesn't accept my authority is thus ignorant," is the hallmark of the true scientist and intellectual.

Answerer

According to the uncertainty principle, if the velocity of the particle was known to be 0, the uncertainty of its position would be very very large (I'm tempted to say infinite, but this would raise all sorts of problems - is this why some say it is impossible for matter to be at 0 K?). Bose-Einstein Condensates are very dense, but I doubt that they are close to black hole density.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Well, Automaton, have you heard of the zero-point energy. So, even at 0K, the particle still have energy and will not be at perfectly rest. But if you changed to other different frames of reference, it is still possible to see particle perfectly at rest.

BigAl71350

Having actually now read Day's works, with an open mind, the antithesis of ignorance, I submit the following:

Toward a 21st Century Worldview Holistic Physics


As Dr. William Day says in the preface to his book, Bridge From Nowhere, every Age has had an explanation for the Universe and the order of Matter in it. Each has believed its account to be the final solution and resisted attempts to change it. Our Age is no different. Current theory whose premises date from about 360 years ago established the concept of motion as a condition and the change of motion as the property upon which everything exists: Dynamic Equilibrium. This a 17th Century Worldview whose principles (everything in the Universe is held together by forces) are still being applied (or trying to be applied) to a World that has accumulated centuries of Knowledge Newton and Galileo never knew. This 17th Century Worldview has splintered and lost its unity, when extended into diverse levels of the Atom, subatomic particle's and the wave nature of light. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don' mix and there is no Unified Field Theory. Einstein defined reality as that which is witnessed by the Observer (Relativity) and thus severed Physics from a fundamental element of our logic system: That there is an objective reality apart from the observer. Quantum theory gives us the Copenhagen interpretation, which offers us the absurd conclusion that matter exists only when there is an observer. The properties of matter are only in the mind of the observer. Nature is absurd, irrational. There is no cause to phenomena. No Cause and Effect.

Lest we forget Science is founded on the principle that nature is rational. That there is an objective reality. There are causes and effects. And theories must be as free of irrationalities of logic as mathematics must be free of procedural errors.

But there is an interpretation of Motion, which does lead to a simple Unified Theory. If we assume that matter's hierarchy, particles, atoms and gravitational systems follows a general pattern of lesser components orbiting a nuclear body then motion becomes a structural feature of matter. From this simple premise, everything can be integrated into all phenomena that stem from a single constant: Motion. And a New World View of extraordinary power, beauty and rationality emerges. The Universe left to itself does not degenerate into chaos but rather though selfgeneration organizes itself into stable systems, from particles to atoms to gravitational systems; and in my opinion to life itself. Dr. Days web site: URL: <a href="http://www.non-newtonianphysics.com/index.htm." target="_blank">http://www.non-newtonianphysics.com/index.htm.</a> contains a wealth of information. His books on this subject, The Bridge from Nowhere, The Bridge from Nowhere II, Holistic Physics, and A New Physics are incredible. Whether right or wrong his work is provocative and IMHO coherent and beautiful.

Dr. Day’s theories I believe deserve a wider audience and would fascinate many people. Any discourse that might arise from the airing of his ideas I believe would be very healthy for not only Physics but also our cultures as a whole.

I am attaching two documents. One written by Dr Day and one by Jim Oschman. Day's publisher, Marvin Solit, of the Foundations for New Directions has a web site with interesting and useful links (www.fnd.org). I have corresponded with Dr Day and Dr. Solit who have given permission to me to forward these documents to you.

Day’s theories explain the nature of matter and space and how the material universe came into existence. Not from a Big Bang but from the other 'half' of reality, a non-material medium (space) where matter evolved from a photonic source. Where Galaxies are the crucibles of creation of the material universe.

My only interest here is getting Bill's ideas out there and generating a lively and hopefully civilized dialogue.
I request you read these materials. Read the material on Day's web site(s). Read the books. They are a revelation. And filled with wonderful vignettes about the men and women who wrote the theories and performed the experiments.

Did you know that E=mc2 was discovered without relativity and published 2 years before Einstein included it as a footnote to his paper 1

One of proofs of relativity was the prediction of the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. Sure enough the predicted difference matched Einstein’s prediction. The only problem, apparently overlooked, is that a German named Paul Gerber published a paper in 1898 (18 years prior to Einstein’s publication) that predicted the same results as Einstein Relativistic equations using Classical physics under the assumption that gravity was not instantaneously transmitted but rather propagated at the speed of light. 2

If you are interested in a story about a totally new Worldview, and it is hard for me to imagine how you could not be, (but that’s just me), and I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Nor hesitate to contact Bill or Marvin. Let’s start a dialogue, a debate and see where it goes. Revolutions in thought often take generations. But there is no time like the present to start.

Sincerely,

Al


1 Umberto Bartocci, Albert Einstein ed Olinto De Pretto - La vera storia del-la formula piu famosa del mondo, Ultreja, Padova, 1998

2 Gerber, P.,"Die raumliche und zeitliche Ausbreitung der Gravitation"Zeitsch. f.Mathem. U. Physik 43, 93-104, 1898