*This edition: March 18 1994, Manuscript Reference Number: 94/AL/02 for Speculations in Science and Technology*

**
Published in investigator Magazine: July 1993 (Supplement) number 31.**

Frank P. Russo

*P.O. Box 90 Campbelltown 5074 South Australia *

Conceived: Sep 21 1992; written form evolving since Sep 22 1992.

ABSTRACT - When one interprets the aberration constant correctly, one comes up with an absolute velocity for light of 304,475,873.2 m/sec. This velocity is not easily apparent because it is masked by the entire relative motions of the universe. From this one can calculate the absolute velocity of the earth, feed the values into the Michelson-Morley Experiment and come up with the experimental nil fringe-shift . The relationship between the c(relative, orbital) and c(relative, perpendicular) can also be worked out. All of this means in effect that the current relativity is fine for electromagnetic propulsions such as those of an electron accelerated by an electromagnetic field but not for mechanical propulsions. This in turn brings back common sense and normal time. The other great discovery is that the universe is expanding because nuclear fission is creating new matter!

**Introduction**

Naturally, let us begin by stating some of the problems with the
existing relativity. The nature of atoms and subatomic particles
is electromagnetic, so it should come as no surprise that an
electron accelerated in an electromagnetic field would increase
in mass due to the absorbed energy from the field. Likewise it
should come as no surprise that an accelerated particle such as
the muon, would possess longevity ^{1}, as a result of all the extra
energy at its disposal (i.e. all the extra 'mass' to radiate out).
Of course, if the mass goes up electromagnetically, then the top
electromagnetic speed would become the limiting speed: but only
in electromagnetic propulsions, (i.e. how can an electromagnetic
field speed up a particle to a speed faster than it itself!).
The relativist's usual defence is to go off in a tangent and
confuse the issue by using "different" clocks and meter rods ^{2}.
However, a sane and rational analysis of this proposal gives
the following facts:

- 1) The time dilation allows light emitted at 90 degrees to the
direction of travel, to still be emitted at "c", but
it makes no difference to the observers receiving
such light , who would be influenced by their own velocity in
their own frame of reference.
2) If you shorten the rod to measure the velocity of light projected forwards, then you will get the wrong answer for light emitted at 90 degrees because there the rod has to remain the same.

3) In my opinion, the problems become astronomical when you move from light emitted to light received because there the time dilation would increase the velocity of light, unless you introduce a third variety of gigantic meter rods to be used all simultaneously! Analyse carefully how my propositions dispel these objections.

**Working Out The Absolute Velocities:**

Let us then continue by deriving the absolute velocity of light and thus start solving this great mix-up which current relativity is.

The first thing we need to do is to work out the vector of the
earth's rotation's velocity, in line with the orbit of the earth,
so that we get an instantaneous compound orbital velocity. Hence:
(Using a velocity calculated by dividing the equatorial ^{3}
circumference of the earth by its sidereal rotation period)

**1)** Where O is the inclination of the
earth to the ecliptic ^{4}, and x is the
rotational speed of the earth along
the ecliptic giving us the following,
(equinoctially of course as we are dealing
with a geocentric quantity in line with the
the centre of the solar system):

- x = (rotation of the earth) X cos 23.440266 degrees
x = 426.6m/sec

Therefore the compound orbital equinoctial velocity =(29,790 + 426.6)m/sec which equals 30,216.6m/sec.

Now, the experimental aberration constant is equal to the mean
compound orbital velocity of the earth divided by the absolute
velocity of light ^{5}, (the fact that it is a mean velocity
conveniently eliminates the complication of the plus or minus 1/2km
oscillation in orbital speed, for which one could correct using the
radius from an almanac. Furthermore, using a mean-accumulated-experimental aberration constant, one should eliminate any minor
oscillations due to polar motion, i.e. Chandler's Wobble:

Therefore: Aberration Constant = (v/c) radians = 20.47"

Solving for c using trigonometry gives the absolute velocity of light as 304,475,873.2m/sec. This represents a figure higher than the current value by 4,683.4km . Of course, it merely represents a mean value for one must be conscious of the inherent errors of the figures used in deriving it. The rotational velocity of the earth is very accurate and as such, adds little error.

On the other hand, the orbital speed of the earth is accurate to plus or minus 5m and this together with the very imprecise experimental aberration constant give the absolute velocity of light an inherent error of plus or minus 125km/sec. This represents only about 2.7% of the increase seen.

Moving on to the absolute velocity of the earth, (that is the end- resultant velocity from the many "merry-go-rounds"...i.e. the earth is going around the sun at about 30km/sec...but the sun is already going at about 250 km/sec around the galaxy...but the galaxy is already going at about 700km/sec around the cluster...but the cluster is already going at about 900km/sec around the supercluster... and so on!), in order to be able to derive it, we need to triangulate between the absolute velocity of light and the observed velocity of light, eg perpendicular to the orbit (or as later shown, even in line with the absolute velocity of the earth as an average velocity).

This latter velocity of light is the experimental 299,792,458 m/sec (which actually represents a "reverse acquisition" from the definition of the meter). Hence:

**2)** One speed is relative (ie if you imagine
the earth and the star as stationary
despite the motion).

The absolute velocity of the earth is easily worked out using pythagorean knowledge giving a huge 53,198.11545 km/sec plus or minus about 710km

**Equations and Arithmetic Proof:**

The obvious objection to reverting to classical systems (for non- electromagnetic propulsions), is that it would seem that light would be greatly disturbed by this orbital velocity when travelling in line with the orbit. However this is not the case, as the relationship between the three velocities of light, (i.e. c(absolute), c(relative, perpendicular) and c(relative, orbital) is as follows:

* c(relative, orbital)=[c ^{2} (absolute)-V^{2} (absolute)]/c(relative, perp.) *

*(1)
*

*
Where c(relative, perpendicular) =[ c ^{2} (absolute) - V^{2} (absolute)]^{1/2}
*

*
When this is substituted in and we simplify the equation, we get
both of the relative c's equal to:
*

*
c(absolute) . [ 1- V ^{2} (absolute) / c^{2} (absolute)]^{1/2} *

* (2)*

Let us firstly give an arithmetical proof by using mean values for working out a hypothetical Michelson-Morley Experiment. All one has to do is to assume that for an interval, whilst a beam of light travels 299,792,458m forwards (and the same backwards) perpendicular to the earth's motion, another beam is travelling the length of 299,792,458m forwards (and the same backwards) in the direction of the orbit.

If you can imagine this, then it will be easy to see that in the absolute frame, light would travel 608,951,746.4m in 2 seconds "perpendicularly":

**3)** What takes place in the
absolute frame "perpendicularly".

Along the orbit, the length travelled in the first half (ie forwards)
equals l.[c_{A} /(c_{A} -V_{A} )] which gives 363,261,640.2 m
The length travelled in the second half (return)
equals l.[c_{A} /(c_{A} +V_{A} )] which gives 255,203,267 m; where the
relative length involved is "l" which is 299,792,458 m.
Thus, the total absolute length travelled orbitally is equal to
618,464,907.2 meters.

Hence, there is a relative slowing down of the speed of light along the orbit by the decreasing ratio 608,951,746.4 /618,464,907.2 which equals 0.984618107 and converts the orbital 304,475,873.2m/sec to 299,792,458m/sec which is the same as the perpendicular relative speed!

**Algebraic Proof:**

As for the algebraic proof for the given equations, all one has to do
is give an algebraic rendition of the foregoing. Let us commence
by calling the distance travelled in the direction of the earth's
velocity "s_{1} " and in the return opposite direction "s_{2} ".

Then s_{1} = c_{R} .[c_{A} /(c_{A} -V_{A} )]

(3)

and s_{2} = c_{R} .[c_{A} /(c_{A} +V_{A} )]

(4)

Then s_{1} + s_{2} equals:

c_{A} .c_{R} [1/(c_{A} -V_{A} ) + 1/(c_{A} +V_{A} )]

then the slowing down ratio = 2c_{A} / ( s_{1} + s_{2} )

conversion of c_{A} to c_{R} = [2c_{A} / ( s_{1} + s_{2} )]. c_{A}

then c(Relative-Orbital)=(C^{2}_{A} - V^{2}_{A} ) / c(Relative-Perpendicular)

(1)

**ASSUMPTION DISSIPATED: **

All of this revolves around the assumption that astronomers are
wrong in their Astronomical Ephemeris: what they do is measure
the aberration constant in such a way so that the maximum value
is at midnight on the equator; then they subtract a correction for
the rotation of the earth: starting with a large corrective
subtraction at the equator tapering down to the pole ^{6}.

This is clearly the wrong way to do it! What they should do is measure the aberration constant equatorially and then subtract a corrective amount which goes from 'zero' at the equator to the maximum subtraction at the pole. This is the correct procedure as the aberration constant is an instantaneous quantity maximized at the equator. (One should also reference the right ascension eg: midnight!)

The fact remains that according to David Evans in the book
"Observations in modern Astronomy" ^{7}, the aberrational displacement
of a star, is equal to 20.496"sin V*, where V* is the angle between
the directions of the star and V . Of course, seeing that the sine
of 90 degrees equals 1 it means that the full aberration constant
is worked out at midnight on the equator. This in turn means
that it is valid to include the rotational vector due to the rotation
of the earth, and my whole edifice stands.

It makes me wonder about the desperation of astronomers to
hang on to the old order, when they revise experimental evidence.
Most persons were quite happy with the experimental aberration
constant of 20.47 seconds of arc and physics books were quite
favourably disposed towards it ^{8} . Yet to better correlate
with supposed parameters, it was changed to 20.496 seconds of arc.

I would now like to call on James Bradley as my "chief witness".
Most astronomical books will tell you that Bradley used
observations of the star Gamma Draconis as the source of his
observations of stellar aberration ^{9} . This was "because it passed
though the zenith in London and thus asymmetries due to refraction of
light in the earth's atmosphere were eliminated" ^{10} .
To cut a long story short, the telescope used, was fixed to a chimney
so that it had a fixed transit and it just so happens that Gamma
Draconis has a declination of 51 degrees 30 minutes which would
have made it virtually above Bradley's telescope, according
to the book "The constellation: an enthusiast's guide to the
night sky" ^{11} .

The crucial aspect of the foregoing, is that Bradley must have made
his readings at 6AM and 6PM, at six-monthly intervals. That would have
been the only way of looking at the same star in zenith at six-monthly
intervals. This means that the rotational component, (at 6AM and 6PM),
was zero and would have explained why my "chief witness" got a value
of 20 seconds of arc ^{12} . That is 29,790m/304,475,873.2m which
equals to 20.18" : very close to Bradley's value! (Amazingly enough
he later did get a value of 20.2 seconds of arc with improved
equipment! ^{13}).

However, later on when James Bradley discovered that
by observing Polaris he could make the observations at any time of
night, I believe that then he introduced the effect due to the
rotation of the earth! At the time, he actually said "neglecting the
small Difference on the Account of the Earth's diurnal Revolution
on its Axis" ^{14}. And this is why he later got a value
between 20 and 20.5 seconds of arc ^{15}.

It is possible to infer
that this is why the aberration constant was stuck on 20.47",
namely that was about the maximum for a Londoner's observation at his
latitude. Anyway such an inference could only be done
retrospectively for in Bradley's day the error margin of his
measurements must have been quite considerable, for as DR R R Burman
(Uni. of Western Australia) pointed out, Bradley's declination
measurements had an error no greater than 2 arc seconds ^{16}.
However, having now actually consulted the original papers of
Bradley, (my thanks to Dr Burman for kindly supplying them), I
can now see the true greatness of the man! For a start, he claimed
that his instruments could be "securely depended upon to half a
second" ^{17}. Some of his figures are extremely accurate even by today's
standards.

With good reason, I have therefore checked Dr Burman's
reference and it appears that it is talking about the early
equipment belonging to Molyneux and not Bradley's. The values
obtained by Greenwich are: 20.445" for the years 1919-27 ^{18} and
20.489" for 1911-36 ^{19} , however these values have only limited
meaning if they have an error interspersed through them. Hence, I
leave the final absolute value for the velocity of the earth, to
the time when the technical excellence becomes standardized in all
the observatories.

Surely if the current framework is right, (without ever putting into practice a discriminatory setup for the rotation of the earth), then some observations should have come up with a value of 20.79 seconds of arc (ie 30,216.6/299,792,458). This has never happened: obviously the system is wrong! (I am sure that some observations must have been done near midnight when the rotation of the earth and orbital speed overlap!).

**IMPLICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR PHYSICS: **

Let us continue by endeavouring to shed some more light on E_{0} = mc^{2}
and nuclear physics. This can be accomplished by considering what
happens when a neutron is fired into Uranium-235 ^{20} .

One of the many possibilities is that we get Barium-141 plus
Krypton-92 plus three neutrons. Using this example,
for working out the approximate one thousandth of mass that
gets converted into energy ^{21} , one has got to subtract
the mass of the fired in neutron from the total. However
this is only true in one atom, but when possibly 1Kg of
U-235 blows up, most of the neutrons belong to the initial mass:
only one neutron is fired from outside the mass!

I take this to mean that whilst E_{0} = mc^{2} is right for
particle collisions near "c" , it is still right for other areas. The
reason that it is right is because the velocity and not the mass, is
relativistic. Had Einstein not been so advanced for his day and
age, he would have probably just substituted m_{0} / (1-v^{2} /c^{2} )^{1/2}
into the classical energy equation E_{0} = 1/2 mv^{2} and reworked the
equation. He correctly integrated the relativistic factor into
the momentum. It has quite clearly been shown by Russian Physicist
Lev Okun that there is no relativistic mass principle ^{22}.

His paper was given to me by Professor Hurst from the Adelaide University in an attempt to back up the fact that there is only one type of mass and that is the Newtonian Mass.

Furthermore, it is a well known fact that particles in cosmic rays ,
can have velocities far in excess of 0.9c without any change in their
masses ^{23}. Thus verifying my belief outlined at the outset, that
any increase in mass might be what is absorbed from the field
eg in particle accellerators...this fact was acknowledged by
Professor Sanderman from the Australian National University.

What Einstein found with his E_{0} = mc^{2} was a very special
case of energy formulation of a particle accelerated in an
electromagnetic field near to "c". He fortunately logically deduced
that it had a general application to all areas as a "rest energy".

Getting back to the current application mentioned regarding nuclear fission, when one goes to the "Rubber Book" and looks up all the weights of the relevant isotopes and of the neutrons, one comes up with the fact that what nuclear fission creates is approximately 0.35% of the original in the U-235 example.. perhaps we can improve on this figure!

Although I am not in the business of jumping to conclusions, it is a sure thing virtually irrevocable, that when a much larger nucleus is 'fissured' into smaller component nuclei: there is a whole lot of binding nuclear energy available, as it would take less energy to 'bind' smaller nuclei. Obviously some of this energy is converted into matter! By the same token, the fusion process would 'fuse' a lot of energy into its resultant much larger nuclei that it is joining together.

**SUMMING UP:**

The picture of the universe which is emerging is that, we now know the
absolute realities and why the universe is expanding, there is
new matter being created from all radioactive fission all over the
universe. This falls in line with what I recall of the Steady State
Theory, the chief proponent of which was the famous British
Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle. The theory has been known to claim
that, if 3 or 4 atoms appear per year in each cubic kilometer of
space, then this would account for the known expansion of the
universe and its amount of matter in its galaxies ^{24} .

Of course, the fact that we may be in a Steady State Phase now, would not preclude a 'Bigbanghian' Creation! Furthermore, this paper makes it a lot easier for others to understand Quantum Theory and "matter waves" because, when you map out the speed of subatomic particles and superimpose it with the comparable 'astronomical' speed of the earth one gets 'matter waves'.

May this march into the 21st century trigger a new macro awareness: so that a global understanding may unite all scientists.

A citizen of the universe:

**References:**

1. New Scientist; 21 Sept 1991; *inside on science no.49 pg.4*

2. A. Einstein 1983. Relativity the special and the general theory.
*"The behaviour of measuring rods and clocks in motion" pgs35-37.*

3. Enc. Britannica 1986. Macropaedia; *Solar System; Vol27 pg.530*

4. Astronomical Almanac; *1976 System of Astronomical constants;
(1992); pgs K6 and B18 .*

5. Evans David S 1968. *Observation in Modern Astronomy; pg8*

6. Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Ephemeris;
*(UK) 1961; HMSO; 2D pgs 49-50*

7. Evans David S 1968. *Observations in modern Astronomy; pg8*

8. Freier George D 1965. University Physics .
*"Velocity of Light"; pgs 425, 426.*

9. Biographycal Dictionary of Scientists: *Astronomers 1984.
Editor David Abbott; "Bradley James"; pg 28.*

10. Freier George D 1965. *University Physics ; pg 426 .*

11. Lloyd Motz and Carrol Nathanson; The Constellation:
*An enthusiast's guide to the night sky; pg 60 .*

12. Brown Hanbury 1978. Man and the stars;
* "the speed of light" ; pg99 .*

13. Philosophical Transactions 1727-8; *Royal Society London; Vol. 35
pgs 653,654.*

14. Philosophical Transactions 1727-8;* Royal Society London; vol. 35
pg 649.*

15. Biographical Dictionary of Scientists: *Astronomers 1984
Editor David Abbott ; "Bradley James" pg 28 .*

16. Pannekoek A. 1961. A History of Astronomy; *Interscience
New York; pg 289.*

17. Philosophical Transactions 1727-8; *Royal Society London; Vol. 35
pg 643.*

18. Smart W.M. 1977. *Textbook on Spherical Astronomy. 6th edition;
Revised by R M Green, Cambridge; pg 190.*

19. Enc. Britannica. 1986. Vol. 9 pg 141.

20. Giancoli D C 1988.Physics for scientists and engineers with modern
physics; *"Nuclear Fission , Nuclear Reactors"; pg994.*

21. The World Book Encyclopedia 1977. *"Relativity"; Volume 16 pg202*

22. Okun Lev B; June 1989. *Physics Today; "The concept of mass"; pg 31*

23. Murugesan Poovan; May 1990. *Physics Today (Letters); pg13 .*

24. Whyatt Stanley P 1977. *Principles of Astronomy (Third Edition);
"A Steady-State Universe" pgs 683, 684 .*

**
This page is copyright © Frank P Russo 1999-2003**