Dear Sir,
You have presented the Einsteinian view that "gravity acts in the same way on different bodies, giving them the same acceleration regardless of their mass, chemical composition and other properties". Einsteinian space-time curvature calculations were based on vacuum, i.e. on a medium without any gravitational properties (since it has no mass). If a material medium is considered (which space certainly is, since it abounds with energy), then it will have a profound effect on the space-time geometry as opposed to that in vacuum. It will make the gravitational constant differential for different localities (as seen in the case of gravitational field strength or acceleration due to gravity). The concept of tidal force shows that gravity is non-uniform
The equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass is yet to be proved directly by any experiment. An analysis of the experiments of Eötvös about the ratio of gravitational to kinetic mass of a few substances by some scientists yields the result that this ratio for the hydrogen atom, and for the binding energies are equal to that for the neutron with a precision of one part in at least 5.105, and 104 respectively. No conclusion can be drawn about these ratios for the proton and the electron separately.
The indirect methods are questionable because of two reasons. Firstly, it has been accepted that ma = mg. But this equivalence is faulty because F = ma is faulty. After the initial force acts on a body, the body moves at constant velocity due to inertia unless another force is acting on it. In the absence of any other force, the equation will be F=mv and not F = ma. If there is any other continuing force, then it has to be introduced in the equation. Thus, the acceleration and gravity cannot be equated. Hence Einstein had to differentiate between free fall, where the effect of gravity is cancelled by acceleration and constant acceleration, which mimics gravity. But in a case of constant acceleration, who provides the constant force? How? Why?
The concept of length contraction suggested by Einstein is wrong. Two possibilities suggested by Einstein were either to move with the rod and measure its length or take a photograph of the two ends of the moving rod and measure the length in the scale at rest frame. However, the second method, advocated by Einstein, is faulty because if the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to his formula. If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift. As a result, gamma is wrong. Hence inertial mass increase is wrong.
The shifting of Mercury's perihelion can be explained by (v/c)^2 radians per revolution, where v is not the escape velocity, but the velocity component induced by Sun's motion in the galaxy, which drags the planets also. Mercury being smallest and closest to the Sun, its effect is most profound. Eddington's experiment about gravitational lensing has been questioned repeatedly. In various threads here, we have proved that equivalence principle is a wrong description of facts.
We have written to S. Perlmutter, B.P. Schmidt and A.G. Riess challenging their theory of dark energy, which we have discussed in various threads here. They could not refute our views. Rather some scientists in their threads have approved our view.
Dark energy is so named because it does not interact with other bodies (hence dark) and it is smooth and persistent (hence not matter, but energy). Since energy is perceived only through its interactions with matter, the term dark energy is an oxymoron. It is said that it does not interact gravitationally - hence dark. But is gravitation an attractive force? No force can physically "pull" - it can only be a "push" from the opposite direction. We will explain magnetic force separately, as its attraction is not universal, but restricted to magnetic substances only. The gravitational interaction keeps the two bodies in a stable orbit around the barycenter, whose position depends upon the ratio of the masses and the distance between the two bodies. If we take the total area within the orbit and distribute the total mass within that area, we will get the average density. The barycenter represents the ratio of masses of the two bodies in terms of this average density. Thus, the barycenter acts as a base or a ground or a background structure for placement of the bodies. Suppose dark energy is something like that?
Maxwell's equations are background invariant. Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as such. Transverse waves are background invariant by its very definition. Since light is a transverse wave, it is background invariant. Einstein's ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell's Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (aether) based. Thus, the non-observance of aether drag (as observed in Michelson-Morley experiments) cannot serve to ultimately disprove the background structure. The so-called non-interacting dark energy may be the background structure.
The universe is not expanding or accelerating, as it is not evident at local galactic scales or less. Had the universe being expanding, such expansion would have been evident in local scales also. Even a spot on the balloon expands. Thus, there is a doubt on the authenticity of the galaxy rotation problem that gave rise to the concept of dark matter. Distant galaxies are rotating around a common galactic center and like the velocities of planets far away from the Sun, their velocities are relatively greater. We can visualize it as a potter's wheel. Compared to a point relatively nearer to the galactic center, the distant objects appear to be moving faster. Since it is a circular orbit, at times they appear as receding while at other times they will appear as approaching. The measured time span is insignificant in cosmic scales.
Our intention is not to criticize your essay, but to provide food for thought. You can visit our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published on May 31.
Regards,
basudeba