the entire astronomy must start again everything from scratch

From: <sorincosofret@elkadot.com>

Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:04 PM
Subject: Electric current definition and other relativistic/astronomical topics…..

Electric current definition and other relativistic/astronomical subjects…..

Electromagnetism is considered the most trustful part of physics. There are still a lot of physicists contesting the special and/or general theory of relativity, there were a smaller number contesting quantum mechanics, but none has been contesting the actual electromagnetism.  

            Therefore, I would like to start this newsletter with some cut off experiments performed in the last decade or even earlier which questions the actual definition of electric current seen as a movement of electric charges in a circuit or in a space region.

            Although it seems a bit paradoxical, the most elegant experiment to test the actual definition for electric current can be made with radioactive sources.

The nutshell of such experiment is quite simple: electric charges emitted by a radioactive source are conducted into an electric circuit and some specific effects are to be observed.

I performed the experiment only with a 60Co TELETHERAPY source with actual characteristic 400 Tbq (~10,8 kCi), which emits electrons. Passing the captured electrons through a micro electrolysis device, no release of gases (i.e. no electrolysis) was observed as expected.

If a flow of electrons is not consistent with expected effects of an electric current anyone can imagine what results are obtained if a proton or alfa radioactive source is used in experiment.

            I preferred to not work a lot with radioactive sources and therefore some magnetic effects of an ,,electrons flow” into a circuit were made with a variation of this experiment using a cathode tube with some adaptations; more precisely the flow of electrons is extracted and instead of generating a point on the screen, it is directed into an electric circuits.

The links for these experiments:

http://elkadot.com/index.php/en/books/electromagnetism/radioactive-source-experiment

http://elkadot.com/index.php/en/books/electromagnetism/cathode-ray-tube-experiments

Not only mainstream science, but even fringe scientists (look after electric universe theory), are going into a wrong direction considering a flow of charged particles (positive or negatives) equivalent with an electric current ………..

If the definition of electric current is a blunder, even a layman can imagine what the value of what has been written in physics in the last centuries is ……

The main topic of today newsletter is still relativity and astronomy/astrophysics.

The work of Ole Römer is reminded as first proof for a estimating the light speed, but we are interested more in a ,,foundation for a new theory of relativity”.

Actually, Römer found, for several months the eclipses lagged more and more behind the expected time, but then they began to pick up again.  He was further able to predict the time of eclipses based on the relative distance between Earth and Jupiter. The light from Io (actually reflected sunlight) took time to reach the Earth, and took the longest time when the Earth was furthest away. When the Earth was furthest from Jupiter, there was an extra distance for light to travel equal to the diameter of the Earth’s orbit compared with the point of closest approach.

Later on other periodic phenomena were observed in Universe starting with binary stars, pulsars and now exoplanets.

As it is well known the speed of light is considered a ,,fundamental constant of nature” and is invariable and independent of the motion of source or the motion of observer.

If this is the case, even in a layman mind should pop up at least two questions:

1. Why there is a change in perceived time of Io eclipses for an Earth observer, depending on the relative distance up to Jupiter but in case of multiple stars, pulsars and exoplanets there is no such dependency?

2. Are these far away periodic systems having a relative motion relative to Earth or are they stationary? If they move away or come toward Earth, then again their perceived periodicity seen by an Earth observer should have still another second factor of variability. 

Why these effects are not observed in measurements? Are all these far away objects plotting a conspiration in order to fool us?

The link with details:
http://elkadot.com/index.php/en/books/astrophysics/periodic-motion-in-universe
In fact, because we have assumed light speed is a universal constant, there is also an ,,spatial aberration”, i.e. all distances across universe are crooked but this, Hubble law and dark energy are the topic of the next presentation…
As I have said in other previous messages the entire astronomy must start again everything from scratch …. and many of  astronomical absurdities are caused by a wrong foundation of science and especially of relativity.
Best regards,
Sorin Cosofret