## Archive for September, 2010

### Criticisms of the University of Wales

September 28, 2010### Section 5 of UFT 155 for Typesetting

September 26, 2010This is a summary of the critically important UFT 155 in a new section 5. It is worth putting maximum effort into this paper.

### Summary of UFT155

September 26, 2010This is a summary of UFT155 which should be added to the numerical section once Table 1 has been completed. It is a shocking indictment of the various false claims to have verified Einsteinian general relativity, claims to precision that that still go on despite many refutations.

1) Einstein did not evaluate the relevant integral correctly, as can be seen from Table 1.

2) Light deflection is still not known accurately. The various NASA claims are based on time delay, which in UFT 155 is found to be very inaccurate, nowhere near the NASA claims.

3) The photon mass method is the best method to date, and contains no errors.

4) The astronomical data needed to evaluate Einstein’s E2 are not known with enough accuracy. G and M are not known accurately, and GM varies. Also, R0, the sun’s photosphere radius, varies a lot.

5) Standard physicists who make these claims are unable to dialogue with critics. This site contains much historical evidence of ad hominem attacks.

6) The Marmet group of University of Ottawa has made many more detailed criticisms, and have done for years.

I will type this up for the final version of UFT155. In the attached table I have suggested some more numerical computations which can now be carried out to very high precision using the methods developed by my co author Horst Eckart. Funding for such false claims should be stopped and switched to research of use to humankind, notably the taxpayer.

### UFT 155, Calculation of Beam Power Density

September 24, 2010This is a calculation of a beam power density of about 0.1 watts per square centimetre for a photon mass of ten power minus fifty two kilograms, given a and R0. This is again a reasonable result. The actual beam power density of the X ray frequency source is presumably known, or the average beam power density of light from a distant star grazing the sun. If this is known, the photon mass can be deduced.

### X Ray Frequencies Calculation for UFT 155

September 24, 2010The calculation gives a temperature of 2.157 K, in very good agreement with 2,307 K from the light deflection calculation. The X ray frequency used was ten power seventeen radians per second.

### X Ray Angular Frequencies

September 24, 2010These are in the range 10 power 17 to 10 power 18 radians per second compared with a visible frequency of about 10 power 16 radians per second. These should be used in UFT 155. Will send an X ray frequency time delay calculation shortly, the result is going to be in very good agreement with the light deflection experiment. The light deflection and time delay experiments seem to be the first two to date to give definitive photon mass. If contemporary Compton scattering techniques are precise enough those may also be able to give photon mass.

### 158(4): Anomalous Compton Scattering due to Photon Mass

September 24, 2010The equation for this effect is eq. ((5) of the attached. this seems to be an entirely new type of experiment in which Compton scattering is tried at microwave or radio frequencies. Any frequency dependence of Compton scattering indicates photon mass.

### 158(3): Measurement of Photon Mass from the Compton Effect

September 24, 2010This note gives a method of measuring the photon mass from the velocity of the electron after scattering, giving the simple result

delta v about (m / M) c

for the change in electron velocity due to photon mass m. Here m is the photon mass, M is the electron mass and c the velocity of light. In the next note I will give the same result for the effect of photon mass on wavelength change in the Compton effect. If the photon mass is about ten power minus fifty two kilograms, the change in electron velocity is about 3 x ten power minus 14 metres per second. The easiest way to measure this is through high accuracy frequency results, the change due to photon mass seems to be within reach.

### Stable Again?

September 23, 2010Looks like we are router-stable again, fingers crossed. Looking back on the academic world I sometimes burst out laughing very heartily. One of the funniest things is the accusation of “intense body odour” going through the wall between my office and that of Vermillion at UNCC. This was of course due to being brought up on a farm and secret experiments on pyridine. When you do 5,000 metres in over a 100F you are going to be less than entirely dessicated at the end. I think that that was going to be used as “misconduct”. I was laughing like this on the road one day, and I saw someone moving quickly to the other side, half running. The moon was not even full.

### Civil List Report by William Morris Colles (1889)

September 23, 2010This is in a critical report on the Victorian era practices:

www.archive.org/stream/literaturepensio00coll/

commissioned by a committee chaired by Alfred Lord Tennyson, Poet Laureate, Civil List. It is by the Victorian Barrister William Morris Colles. I found the following data on the great Georgian / Victorian era scientists and year of appointment.

John Dalton 1833, Sir George Airy 1835, Michael Faraday 1836, Robert Brown Sept. 14th 1842, Sir William Rowan Hamilton April 27th 1844, John Couch Adams July 14th 1848, David Livingstone June 19th. 1873, James Joule 1878, Alfred Russell Wallace Feb. 5th. 1881, Oliver Heaviside, 1896.

That is a cross section of some of the greatest names in science and similar. The Order of Merit scientists include Dirac, Eddington, Rayleigh, Dorothy Hodgkin and Kelvin. Two Civil List Pensioners were both O. M. and Civil List: Walter de la Mare and Alfred Russell Wallace.

If I meet my distant cousin Queen Elizabeth II in an audience one day, I will try to explain that two physicists make a queue, three always argue. You are welcome here any day and I can help with the Welsh language. There is a tremendous amount of interest in my work as we can see from feedback to www.aias.us. There is a deep split in the physics world, the prizes until now have been awarded to one faction, which is rapidly losing its grip.