Viva Obama...:)

VIVA OBAMA....:)

Every so often quality is so evident that the correct choice is obvious and undeniable.  That is the case with Barack Obama.

The man has the important qualities which should be valued by a nation: intelligence, honesty, preparation, education, common-sense, equilibrium.

As soon as it became evident or likely that he would succeed, the dollar got stronger, the stock market rallied, the people rallied...:) Initial excitement might be tempered with the current reality, but the future looking up again after...:)

There is a renewed hope that if one works hard, provides quality in one's work/person, success will eventually happen.

In my little blog, I confess that my hopes are also renewed.  Someday, some rogue scientist will break ranks with the silenced majority and bring my ideas into the fold of scientific discussions or at least grow some courage and create an argument against it...:) 

Science is the ultimate bastion of silenced majorities. 

If everyone keep reading my ideas and remain afraid of saying something, nobody will ever know that these ideas have quality..:)

Can we ever change the status-quo, the dearth of new ideas and the holding onto ideas that have been proven wrong - at least on some of their peripheral predictions...:) (GR basic predictions are also predicted by my theory and by many others - while only mine predicts the existence of White Orifices...)

Yes, we can!!!

MP

PS- In the next few blogs I will write that my contrite inclusion of gravitomagnetism discussion from Wikipedia proved to be a mistake. 

When one reads an equation (Lense-Thirring effect) that is named after two people, one automatically lends it credibility since it seems that the idea has been vetted by two people who shared the glory. It just happens that gravitomagnetism is experimentally wrong. It is awfully difficult to see that just by looking at the non-physical gravitomagnetism Maxwel equations.  They bring non-physical quantities that are loosely interpreted as magnetism or something else...:)

Canterbury experiment
R.D. Graham, R.B. Hurst, R.J. Thirkettle, C.H. Rowe, P.H. Butler: Experiment to Detect Frame Dragging in a Lead Superconductor, submitted to Physica C.

J. E. Faller, W. J. Hollander, P. G. Nelson, and M. P. McHugh: Gyroscope-weighing experiment with a null result, Physical Review Letters Vol. 64, pp. 825-826, 1990.

J. Luo, Y. X. Nie, Y. Z. Zhang, and Z. B. Zhou: Null result for violation of the equivalence principle with free-fall rotating gyroscopes, PHYSICAL REVIEW D, VOLUME 65, 042005, 2002.

The Canterbury experiment was specially telling. It places a upper limit for gravitomagnetism that is 21 times lower than predictions of Einstein's GR theory.  Remember, these gravitomagnetism equations are weak field limits of Einstein's horrendously difficult to integrate GR equations...:)

I felt bad when I couldn't explain a 0.8% mismatch between my predictions for the vacuum permittivity.and the experimental measurement..>:)  

Eventually I was able to find out the best explanation and gave it to you...:)

This is not the only problem I have with GR.  My problems are not personal...:)  They are the result of myself creating a simple theory with an scalar dilaton field which resulting an scalar Gravitational potential.  Einstein theory requires through the Einstein Equivalence Principle that:

The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment is independent of the velocity of the free-falling reference frame in which it is performed.

The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment is independent of the velocity of where and when in the universe is is performed.

Of course, my theory predicts that G depends inversely with the age of the Universe.  It also predicts that an electronic coherence will slow down (red-shifted fluorescence or absorption) just by sitting on the surface of a celestial body.  Of course, there is no distinction between gravitational and electromagnetic fields. In my theory, the difference lies not on the field but on the dilator being subjected to the field....:)

The fact that something is free falling doesn't make a difference since the red-sift depends only upon how twisted the local fabric of space is. That twisting doesn't depend upon the existence of a constraint (surface of the celestial body).

This means that I flatly reject Einstein Equivalence Principle (WEP is alright if one considers only 3DMasses) and GR Einstein equations based upon its failure on predicting White Orifices and incorrect predictions on gravitomagnetism.  My theory predicts the other experimentally events (Gravitational Lensing and the Precession of Mercury's Perihelion) and predicts White Orifices..>:)