# EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR CLASSICAL RELATIVITY

### Frank P. Russo

P.O. Box 90 Campbelltown 5074 South Australia

Written: Sep.27 1993; revised: September 29, 1994

Slowing Down of Atomic Clocks

The einsteinian theory predicts that on a plane travelling at about 300m/sec, the atomic clock will slow down by 5 parts in 10 13. Results appear to verify this 1, however they have not been all that conclusive and may hinge on the right orientation of the earth's absolute velocity. My theory predicts an identical slowing down of the relative speed of light, i.e.:  1) Light to travel a distance at earth 'rest' 2) Light to travel the same distance at 300m/sec

As can be seen every second is lengthened by 5 parts in 10 13. However this is only true in apparent time based on the relative speed of light, whereas the absolute time based on the absolute speed of light goes on undisturbed.

The Perihelion of Mercury

In 1967 Dicke and more recently Henry Allen Hill have suggested that a small part of Mercury's perihelion advance, may be caused by the slight flattening of the sun at its poles 2. I suggest that out of the 43" unexplained, 2.4" are due to the flattening of the sun, with the remaining 40.6" being a sort of "negative aberration". This fits in very well once one considers the fact that the perihelion speed of Mercury is a large 59.0 km/sec: 3) Negative Aberration

The Bending of Light

Einstein suggested with his principle of equivalence that gravitational mass and inertial mass were equivalent. However, my thought-experiments prove that inertial mass converts into two gravitational masses 3 thus:

2F = G(mi1 . mg2)/d2

(1)

2F = mi.a

(2)

2E = mi.c2

(3)

Equation(3) is not a correction of an Einsteinian formula but rather it is a rewriting of Poincare's (1900) formula defining the mass of a pulse of light as  m = E/c2   4, non-relativistically of course. As can be seen, using equation one, (containing inertial masses), one must multiply the force by a factor of 2. This means that if one has inadvertedly used inertial mass, one should multiply by 2 to convert to gravitational units. This is what I suspect might be the real answer to the bending of light, as opposed to the curving of space-time.

Einstein's figures appear too conveniently as exactly twice as much as Newton's predictions. I suggest that one should work out a moving mass of a photon, (there is no rest mass because a photon does not exist at rest), and then double it, to convert it from inertial mass to gravitational equivalents: he will then get the right deflection for the bending of light!

Red Shift

As for the red shift seen in starlight: it is obvious that the star's motion is not the only factor, as the gravitational field would act as a retardant, thus robbing light rays of some of their energy... (i.e. the Mossbauer Effect).

Conclusion

Of course, in my relativity one is not dealing with illogical unknowns, but rather with known and measurable quantities such as aberration. There is therefore no comparison between the two.

References:

1 Ohanian Hans C; The theory of Relativity; PHYSICS pg430.

2 Enc. Britannica 1986; Relativity;Vol.26 pg535.

3 Russo F P; Dec 25 1990 0300hrs; Unpublished paper; THE TRUTH ABOUT GRAVITY: UNMASKING THE MYSTERY (Birthday present to Newton).

4 Okun Lev B ; June 1989; Physics Today; pg.33. 