Click here to download the article in Microsoft Word format (Ieeevp1.zip)
Response to Wilcox on Gravitational Potential
Mr. Wilcox requests the starting point for the basis of RCM. RCM holds with absolute time, with clock slowing due to motion and gravitational effects. We do not hold to absolute space or aether, but demonstrate that all effects are based on relative motion. Newtons laws of motion represent a simplification applying for slowly moving objects. In Maxwells equations, the measured value of c represents just thata measured value. As the companion article in a future issue will show, Maxwells equations say nothing about the value of the variable c. It is only upon measuring or observing the speed of light or the values of eo or mo that c takes on a specific value, and that value is clearly observer dependent. Newtons inverse theory of gravitation represents a limiting case for stationary or slowly moving objects, which must be modified with velocity dependent terms taking into account the finite speed of propagation of gravitational effects, in a manner similar to EM effects, and as opposed to Newtons "instantaneous action at a distance." As a consequence, one finds a similar basis for gravitational waves as is seen in GRT.
The RCM theory agrees with all experimental results to date, including radial and transverse Doppler effects, clock slowing due to motion and gravitational effects (Hafele-Keating, Scout-D Rocket), Shapiro time-delay, Mercurys perihelion, starlight deflection, gravitational red-shift (Pound-Rebka), apparent mass increase in particle accelerators, and more. As such, RCM is the only theory other than SRT and GRT to explain all these tests. However, there are important distinctions between the two. Contrary to Mr. Wilcoxs suggestion, RCM is much more intuitive, simple and elegant than Einsteins theories. RCM restores intuitive notions of simultaneity, absolute time, and relative distances to events. Further, RCM removes restrictions on attainable velocities in propulsion and communications, thus avoiding many of the troubling incompatibilities seen between quantum mechanics and relativity. There are also aspects concerning timing and clock synchronization which may become important instrumentation issues in future long-range, unmanned space missions. Finally, a fresh, honest and open evaluation of the truth and adequacy of SRT and GRT should allow for exciting research and advancement in areas that have atrophied since the advent and widespread acceptance of those theories.
As with the Gravity Probe B test of the Lense-Thirring frame-dragging effect, one must be careful what one is actually testing. In general, one wishes to test between two or more competing theories which are otherwise equally successful. In this case, one is simply testing to greater precision a theory that has already been shown to make accurate predictions, regardless of the soundness of its underlying assumptions. The test as such, if successful, will say nothing about the validity of GRT as an accurate model of the nature of space-time. Further, a negative result will send researches off in search of sources of experimental errors rather than a revision to or replacement of GRT. This has to be the case since there is no alternative hypothesis against which to compare results. As such, we are actively pursuing as much detail as we can obtain about the experiment, so that we may publish an advance paper if RCM predicts results in conflict with GRT. As importantly, we are currently working with the University of Connecticut on a possible test of the differences between the nature of simultaneity as expressed in SRT and RCM.
Very truly yours,
Curt Renshaw, President