[R. N. Boyd]: It seems to me these expressions of Andrija Radovic are quite right, and that these understandings are important for true progress in physics, and for the dispelling of illusions and prejudices among the scientific community, particularly with regard to the Lorentz transformations and relativity theory.

This goes along with my recent discussion some of the forgotten implications of Ampere's law.

Contrary to prevailing theories which hold that the atoms are the smallest current elements, I hold that there exist infinitely small particles which ultimately represent the smallest of current elements. I have recently discovered an important work by the Marquis de La Place from the 1800s, which has gravitation being the result of an influx of an infinitely fine aether which has an intrinsic velocity millions of times faster than the speed of light. I have spent the past 5 years reaching this same understanding, without the benefit of the La Place work of the mid 1800s. I think La Place was perfectly correct, but his aether gravitation work has been unfortunately neglected until now.

Perhaps you are aware that in the case where we suppose that there exists a gradient of subquantum particles that increase in density as we approach a massive body, that the observable results of such circumstances are indistinguishable from the results obtained by considering that there exists a "curved space" in the same region. I think that there has never been any "curved space". In fact, when space is measured by instrumentation, we observe that it appears flat as far as we can see. I might point out that Einstein himself said repeatedly that any "curvature of space" must occur at cosmological scales, not at local ones. The validity of Einstein's expressions regarding local curvature of space is readily observable as flat space, as far as the eye can see.

I think it is important to understand where the prevailing views of physics went wrong, to better understand the truth. In this regard, one may contemplate the fact that all the physics we have commonly available to us, combined, cannot predict how long it will take us to get to the store and back, due to the involvement of Consciousness, which has never been adequately addressed or understood in the physical basis. It seems clear to me that until this topic is properly addressed we will never have any manner of completion in our understanding of our world.

I am forwarding this to Peter Gariaev and Alex Kaivarainen, among others, as the link: http://www.andrijar.com/rwoteewdm/index.htm

See: http://www.autodynamics.org

Also see: Physics Essays - Volume 5, number 1 - March 1992 The Muon Decay muon+ -> e+ e+ e+ and Autodynamics by Ricardo Carezani Muon Decay

I like this work because it agrees with me on the following points:

Galilean relativity is correct.

There exists only one frame for the universe. (Lorentz was physically wrong.)

Neutrinos are fictions invented by Pauli in an attempt to rescue SR from energetic anomalies.

There was never a big bang.

The speed of light is not a limitation to velocity.

Gravitation is caused by particles

There are no black holes

Red shifting is not a valid method of determining astronomical circumstances

Entropy of the universe is constant, NOT "ever-increasing". (There will never be any "heat death" of the universe.)

The pico-particles responsible for gravitational phenomena are sometimes captured by masses, leading to mass increases over time.

Distance is a constant, NOT a variable, as the Lorentz transformations represent a mathematically correct fantasy which is easily verifiable as physically wrong.

The Allias pendulum anomalies which cannot be explained by Newtonian or relativistic models of gravitation are easily explained by aether density variations.

In particle physics, behaviors are analogous to interactions between whirlpools in a fluid, rather than the "billiard ball" models which are commonly expressed.

There are no "quarks".

"Action at a distance" is a fact permitted when physical events are intermediated by subquantum superluminal particles.

Faster than light photons exist.

The decay event models of present particle physics are fictions.

It is possible to construct a microscope to view subatomic particles.

Etcetera.

The only major thing that seems to be missing here is the aether. But we can consider his "pico-graviton" particles as just another name for an aether.

Carezani unfortunately clings to a view that the universe is finite in volume. With my infinite range telescope, such superstition will soon be dissipated.

In summation: Vindicated again!

[Response from Andrija Radovic]:

Dear Mr Boyd,

Theory of Autodynamics is also wrong but physically and logically more acceptable. Autodynamics is not able to correctly yield formula for Cherenkov radiation as it is shown on the http://www.andrijar.com/autocher/index.html and http://www.andrijar.com/cherenkov/cherenkov.htm.

See also http://www.andrijar.com/twins/index.htm and http://www.andrijar.com/sr/sr.htm. For further analysis of hoax you should see http://www.andrijar.com/maxwell.htm (Note - this link is currently inactive). If we accept proposed modification than we could obtain http://www.andrijar.com/grav/grav.htm.

I have performed a few experiments with homopolar machines and toroidal coil and result is very surprising. I am preparing a web page about that.

Best regards,
Andrija Radovic