Forum Introduction

[michellemfry]

About the founder's diligent and timely research, get used to it. The guy spoils us all. We tell him so, but he never changes. Enjoy, flopflip!

[nanuqq]

I have arrived at this forum searching for more information on this theory, which I discovered at slashdot.

I have read Mr. Mayer's presentations, and in my opinion he is very correct at questioning several present day physics results. I have searched for the information he quotes about Pioneer anomaly and GPS anomalies (contrary to what the presentation says, it is available). In both places the unexplained periodic data exists, it is unexpected data, and in both cases it is dismissed on the grounds of being "related to the sideral earth day", that is without having nor even attempting any explanation to it.

The doppler effect in the galaxies spin. I had already read the article, some time ago, in Scientific American. It surprised me then that, despite being the bias evident in the graphs, that article purposedly and very carefully avoided mentioning it.

Dark matter. The Pioneer anomaly report reading confirms to me what Mr. Mayer claims: Dark matter is supposed to exist in massively larger quantities than observable matter, yet it supposed to be exactly zero within the solar system. My conclusion: Dark matter is a fabrication without a good base. Galaxies spin far too fast, and nobody knows why.

The "black drop". I have oberserved it myself. That's why I am interested at any explanation. Mr Mayer is the first one ever who claims to have one, thougt it does not seem very convincing to me.

Being things where they are, it surprises me considerably the attitude of some sientifics who considered Gravity Probe B an unnecessary experiment because the results "will be, assuredly" the expected ones. Now, that's prepotence, since GP-B attemps to observe a couple of things for the first time ever. Specifically, it is supposed to observe geodetic effect with great precision. Well, Mr. Mayer claims that geodetic effect does not exist at all.

GP-B science phase finished several months ago, and we still don't know the observed results (why?). When published, we will have a better base to discuss this new theory.

I would also like to know if anyone is attempting to build a GPS chip that works according to this theory, since all the necessary data is already available, only the algorithm needs to be changed. It would be easy to compare results with present-day chips.

I am a layman at physics, but the tought experiment in the presentation looks correct to me. If it is wrong, I would like to see it refuted somewhere.

[waterford]

I noted that afmayer's Stanford website can no longer be accessed and that his status as a Visiting Scholar has been removed from the Faculty listing. No explanations were provided. Consequently, I sent an email to the Physics Dept chairman and requested that he replace the Access Forbidden page with an exlanation due the wide interest that Dr. Mayer's postings had generated. I'm not sure that anything will come of it, but I thought that it was worth a try.

[mhtnreview]

who can do the math on AFM's first presentation hasn't simply worked it out and given a thumbs up or thumbs down in one of these (or any of the multifarous others on the web) forums. I mean, AFM gives so many examples of fairly unrelated problems that his theory neatly resolves that simply finding out if the math is consistent across say, two of the examples would give real credence (or not) to the whole shebang.

Now number A, why doesn't AFM simply do this and publish his findings?

And number b, why doesn't any good 2nd year physics student work through two of AFMs examples and post an informed opinion? All I've found are naysayers claiming it's BS and providing no clear reason why, and other goofuses saying "I've always thought time was like, different everywhere, ever since I took mushrooms with my friend Pete, who once took a physics class and he said the universe was shaped like a cream donut. AFM is so like Pete, I sure miss Pete!"

Am I missing something? Has every actual physicist just passed on, seeing the glaring error on page one, and I'm such a goofus wannabe that I'm getting duped by a run of the mill mountebank?

Because from a simple uh, narrative assesment of the tenor of AFM's PDF stacks, his wide range of easy recipes for testing his theory, and the scope of problems that GTR intersects with, it, while not really being up to the model of legitimate physics as usual (peer reviewed papers in real publications by previously published and well known authors), it also isn't all _that_ much like all the other TOE crackpots out there, who tend to hysterically assert how their idea is radical and original while providing no testability and scant mathmatical testimony and a passing at best knowledge of what are viable questions in the physics community...

so come on, someone, what gives? I'll pay anyone who can do the math to write about what's right or wrong with that first stack. On Paypal. $5! First come, first served!

[Robert]

I found a cached version of the website on google and noticed in the text that Mr. Mayer had a pending personal URL at http://www.alexandermayer.com that was temporarily redirected to the Stanford University site. And his personal site is operational!

There is a new link to review comments on the Lectures. There is also a Symposium, titled "Refining Einstein: The Search for Relativity Violations", scheduled for this Monday, February 20, 2006 from 2-3:30pm. It is not clear yet where this symposium will be taking place. Possibly in St. Louis, Missouri. Please post if you have more information on the location. There is also a special meeting, possibly this Saturday evening to discuss the contents of the lectures. Location and time not decided yet.

[Robert]

An interesting email I received from Mr Mayer:

Dear friends and colleagues,

As most of you have noticed, my Stanford Website has been down for about a week now. There is a new website that went up this morning with URL

afmayer.net

You can learn about what happened at this new Website.

As I am sure you are aware, my scientific work can be perceived as damaging to the careers of a number of scientists and also as a threat to their sources of public funding (your tax dollars). It can be anticipated that, at least in the short term, there will be enormous social and political pressures to “bury” my work for as long as possible. One person I spoke to said that it would be about 15 years! Because of people like you, I don’t think it will really take that long. My Website logs showed about 100,000 downloads in the three days between the Slashdot article coming out and the termination of my computing privileges at Stanford. Science is a beautiful thing, for it appeals only to the ultimate authority; correct scientific ideas are self-evident in the face of objective empirical inquiry.

Most of you are probably familiar with the concept of a signal-to-noise ratio. In order for a signal to be received, either it has to be amplified above the noise threshold or the noise threshold needs to be reduced below the signal. As concerns information, we live in a very ‘noisy’ world today and it is not possible to reduce that noise threshold. The only way to punch through is to amplify your signal well above that significantly high noise threshold. If you believe that my ideas are worthy of serious consideration by the scientific community and by the public who funds most scientific research, then start campaigning for discussion to take place. Help me amplify my signal.

The immediate practical need is Internet bandwidth. I need to establish a number of global mirrors at various institutions with fast unlimited bandwidth so that the information contained in my lectures is readily and expediently available to anyone who wants it.

In addition to my lectures, I have added a brief new paper on the subject of energy, quantum mechanics and gravitation. It is an extremely bold thesis and I cannot say that I have the same level of confidence in it at this time as in my other ideas, because there is as yet no empirical evidence to back it up. However, the ideas have exciting potential and ‘feel’ right. I have proposed an experiment to prove me wrong, if that is indeed the case.

Thank you for your interest and support,

Alexander Mayer
amayer@alum.mit.edu

As stated in the email, Mr Mayer's URL is now www.afmayer.net so I will update the starting post with the new reference. The reason why Mr Mayer's original Stanford website was discontinued is explained here.

Please remember to start a new thread when you comment on the lectures. I'll be moving some of the posts in this thread to new threads later today. Be sure and download the lectures if you haven't already done so.

--Robert

[Alfred Maddenstein]

who can do the math on AFM's first presentation hasn't simply worked it out and given a thumbs up or thumbs down in one of these (or any of the multifarous others on the web) forums. I mean, AFM gives so many examples of fairly unrelated problems that his theory neatly resolves that simply finding out if the math is consistent across say, two of the examples would give real credence (or not) to the whole shebang.

Now number A, why doesn't AFM simply do this and publish his findings?

And number b, why doesn't any good 2nd year physics student work through two of AFMs examples and post an informed opinion? All I've found are naysayers claiming it's BS and providing no clear reason why, and other goofuses saying "I've always thought time was like, different everywhere, ever since I took mushrooms with my friend Pete, who once took a physics class and he said the universe was shaped like a cream donut. AFM is so like Pete, I sure miss Pete!"

Am I missing something? Has every actual physicist just passed on, seeing the glaring error on page one, and I'm such a goofus wannabe that I'm getting duped by a run of the mill mountebank?

Because from a simple uh, narrative assesment of the tenor of AFM's PDF stacks, his wide range of easy recipes for testing his theory, and the scope of problems that GTR intersects with, it, while not really being up to the model of legitimate physics as usual (peer reviewed papers in real publications by previously published and well known authors), it also isn't all _that_ much like all the other TOE crackpots out there, who tend to hysterically assert how their idea is radical and original while providing no testability and scant mathmatical testimony and a passing at best knowledge of what are viable questions in the physics community...

so come on, someone, what gives? I'll pay anyone who can do the math to write about what's right or wrong with that first stack. On Paypal. $5! First come, first served!

Six years have passed. So what happened to your fiver?

[labelwench]

Six years have passed. So what happened to your fiver?

An interesting place to wade in although many of the posters on this thread have not graced us with their presence for some time. Still, a few are hereabouts and perhaps Robert himself will respond.

Perhaps the following link will prove useful to some, as it appears that the work in question is available as a free download, digitally signed by A. F. Mayer. I'm in the process of downloading it now, about a 5-minute project at our internet speeds of approx. 90 KB/sec.

http://jaypritzker.org/pages/book.html

I greatly respect those investigators who make their work available without the sole consideration of remuneration.

Had I read the following, I may not have downloaded the book, though I like to test things that I am going to post. I do not have the prerequisite academic background, still, I will see if any tidbits fall out of a quick perusal.

The geometric properties of time arising from insights introduced by Hermann Minkowski are discussed. A geometric model of time yields a simpler and more natural explanation of relativistic temporal effects than prevailing ideas and better explains astrophysical empirical observations, including the apparent accelerating expansion of the Universe. It is shown that new accurate and corroborating empirical data from the two largest recent galaxy redshift surveys (2dF and SDSS) are inconsistent with the standard cosmological model, yet provide robust empirical support for a revised model based on temporal geometry arising from the principles of relativity. This dissertation also introduces several innovative and illuminating ideas related to special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Prerequisites for readers who are not academic professionals in physics or astronomy:

This book has been written to be accessible to a broad technical audience.
Any mathematician should be able to read the book regardless of physical science background. Others should ideally have completed four university semesters of physics or the equivalent. It is sufficient to have an academic background typically associated with a four-year degree in astronomy, engineering, chemistry, computer science or similar technical discipline, which includes proficiency in advanced calculus. No additional training in specialized mathematics (e.g., differential geometry or group theory) is required.

The fiver in question is absolutely safe from me.

[Alfred Maddenstein]

An interesting place to wade in although many of the posters on this thread have not graced us with their presence for some time. Still, a few are hereabouts and perhaps Robert himself will respond.

Perhaps the following link will prove useful to some, as it appears that the work in question is available as a free download, digitally signed by A. F. Mayer. I'm in the process of downloading it now, about a 5-minute project at our internet speeds of approx. 90 KB/sec.

http://jaypritzker.org/pages/book.html

I greatly respect those investigators who make their work available without the sole consideration of remuneration.

Had I read the following, I may not have downloaded the book, though I like to test things that I am going to post. I do not have the prerequisite academic background, still, I will see if any tidbits fall out of a quick perusal.




The fiver in question is absolutely safe from me.

That is a mighty curious clash of a claim Mayer made in the letter with my observations. He wrote that 100 000 downloads contracted the bandwidth of his site, yet a detailed analysis of the theory is nowhere to be found. All I could find was a few informal reviews.
If half of the copies were read and half of the readers could read math somebody must have had some informed opinion.
I offered a Robel prize for a good refutation. So far there have been no aspirants to win the prize.