 Click For First Page Of This Chapter
We'd use a Doppler. They say the proof of a pudding's in the eating, and if that's the case, then the proof of any good piece of postulation is in the prediction. If you can't measure any new idea, it quite simply isn't much of an idea.
And so, what I decided to do, was look for a way to produce an ambit where the volume of mass is increased on either body. And although I don't really want to blow my own trumpet too ludly, what I arrived at was a rather unique solution.
I'd use an eclipse, either solar or lunar, in another solar system to develop the
prediction and show, where possible, the theory practical.
This is what I said: if a solar eclipse takes place in a different, more distant solar system, the mass of the star must increase slightly when the star condenses.
If this happens, and the level of mass does indeed increase, as the prediction says it must, then the point of force we witness as a star, must logically conpenstate for any alteration in the volume of mass - and simply relocate its position for the duratjon of the eclipse. Theoretically, we should observe light fractionally rise, until the solar eclipse transpires.
Starlight would then return to its former locality as the star itself relinquishes its hold on the higher level mass. Alternatively, a lunar eclipse will produce the opposite effect on the starlight we observe as a star in the night sky. If a lunar eclipse occurs in a distant solar system, the the gravitational force of the said star should naturally loosen its gravitational force, the volume of mass weaken, and starlight fall to a lower locality.
Once the eclipse passes, starlight should return to its original position. We term these events: 1: (The rise and fall of starlight on a secondary equation to a Doppler.)
2: (The fall and rise of starlight on a secondary equation to a Doppler.) Either would validate the postulation so far and show light cannot be a constant in a vacuum as Einstein predicted.
But how can we be sure, that what I say here has any credibility whatsoever? Some academics, including my good friend Keith Pritchard, pointed this out to me, and warned against going public too soon, although Kieth himself had to raise his eyebrows when I explained, rather passionately how the theory came about. I told Kieth as we stood in the corner of a packed auditorium, our fellow academics clusted in cellular groups around us, standing with the obligatory plate of nibbles and cups of tea, the idea first struck me when looking at images of the astronauts of the space shuttle on one of their many, dangeros spacewalks.
Almost bored by the countless images of astronauts extended on mechanical arms from the shuttle itself, I began to wonder about the lack of
starts behind them.
The huge, almost hypnotic image of the planet lost in an infinite sea of blackness got me thinking. Of course, we all know science has for years postulated theory on the "mineshaft" belief.
Because of the huge
force of gravity from Earth behind the astronaut, it's equivalent to venturing deep down a mineshaft.
The further down the mineshaft you go, the more light narrows. But watching the televised images, a thought provoked me: how
Continued
Special Relativity The Essay Page 1.
Special Relativity The Essay Page 2.
Special Relativity The Essay Page 3.
Special Relativity The Essay Page 4.
Special Relativity The Essay Page 7.
Special Relativity The Essay Page 8.
Special Relativity The Essay Page 9.
Special Relativity 1.
Special Relativity 2.
Special Relativity 3.
Special Relativity 4.
Special Relativity 5.
Special Relativity 6.
Special Relativity 7.
Special Relativity 8.
Special Relativity 9.
Special Relativity 10.
Special Relativity 11.
Special Relativity 12.
Special Relativity 13.
Special Relativity 14.
Special Relativity 15.
|
|
|
