The Discreet Charm of the Discrete by Paul Halpern

Hi Paul,

Yes, the idea needs a fuller expansion but I'm confident it can explain them all away. As to the orginal quandry of Mercury's orbit, this can be explained by the 'inclination hypothesis' i.e. that gravity is stronger towards the plane of rotation of a celestial body. I'm working on it at this moment.

Kind regards,

Alan

Dear Sir,

We asked a specific question: "kindly explain which part of our view is wrong and how?" It is still unanswered. If we are correct, then your description is wrong. Hence kindly reply to our query specifically.

The time dilation report with the atomic clock experiment was fudged and there is proof for this since the original records are still available in the Archives. The Eddington's expedition report was also fudged and sometime ago it was a much debated topic. The other experimental results can be explained differently. Relativistic mass increase is based on the concept of inertial mass increase, which has never been verified. Thus, it is still a postulate. Thus, you are relying only on wrong notions.

Please do not take it as our arrogance. We are discussing foundational questions. Hence our foundations must be strong. Hence kindly prove us wrong or discard your wrong notions.

Regards,

basudeba.

Paul,

No fair salting the discussion with facts.

Tom

Hello,

I was surprised I didn't see a reference to the work of Y. JACK NG in your paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0403/0403057v1.pdf

Regardless, the idea of photons "moving" in steps is peculiar, to say the least. I personally think it is naive. Dr. Baez says:

"If the rest mass of the photon were non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalisable; also, charge conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have zero rest mass."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

If the photon has no mass then it can only move continuously. If it turns out that it has a very small, finite mass, then the universe would need virtually infinite energy to accelerate and stop all the photon so that they move in steps, unless this energy comes from somewhere else, in which case your model breaks down.

Gentlemens

I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

Yuri Danoyan

New Measurement of the Earth's Absolute Velocity with the Help

of the "Coupled Shutters" Experiment

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-

05.PDF

Great essay Paul. Well done and very best of luck.

Best wishes

Peter

Paul

Sincerest commiserations at your undeserved apparent omission from the final placings. A travesty for a fundamental physics site, as some far less important 'stock' opinion is elevated above some excellent original work and conceptual thinking (and also my own of course!) with seemingly no respect given to the community view and ratings by anonymous judges.

I didn't check to see if you did comment on mine, if you didn't read it I hope you might, except it's now being left behind by exciting progress. I do feel there is commonality to be explored.

Don't be disparaged. Best wishes for the future.

Peter

Peter,

Best wishes for the future too! I wish you and all the participants all the best. Best of luck with all of your endeavours!

-Paul