compensating for it. In short, any space ship launched to, say Mars, would MISS the planet by the distance the ether drift would carry it off its course, just as a plane which ignores the wind velocity would not arrive at its destination by many miles—AND, the ship would run out of fuel long before it reached its destination, IF it accepted authority, and counted on "coasting" through millions of miles of NON-RESISTING emptiness, and instead discovered the emptiness was not emptiness at all, and offered a resistance (which might require a constant acceleration of one gravity, more or less, to avoid coming to a halt just as a log shoved into a lake will be halted by the water unless the shove is continuously applied).
The reader can see the importance of proving Shaver and Graham right or wrong. Space travel tactics and success depend on it!
Other thinkers among our readers will comprehend that the Shaver exd concept also can explain why the planets remain in their orbits, how they remain there, the forces that produce the phenomena, and the forces that can "create" a world, or a solar system.
Readers of Oahspe will note the THIRD startling agreement with Shaver exd in its scientific theory of how suns and planets are created— by the "whirlpool" or "vortex" in space. If space is EMPTY, the concept of a whirlpool in it is silly. If it is exd, it is NOT silly. It is the MOST LOGICAL WAY to form any stellar body, to drive finely divided matter (space—ether) together to form solid (material) bodies.
It is time to reexamine the "nature of the universe" to determine what new concrete evidence can be introduced to modify our obviously archaic concepts. We can never know the real nature of the universe, but we can approach ever closer to approximating it. We have some NEW evidence to be applied to our concepts. If we reject it as dogmatists, future men will suffer for it.
Picture yourself in that first space ship aimed at Mars. Picture yourself missing it, dying horribly in space, forever lost. And all because you found out that a mysterious ether scientists assured you did not exist, ACTUALLY DID, and it COULD HAVE BEEN taken into consideration, and your life would NOT have been lost.
UNIFICATION OF NEWTONIAN AND
EINSTEINIAN MASS CONCEPTS
By
ROGER P. GRAHAM
1.NEWTON postulated that mass was a constant. This was assumed to be true until modern experimental physics determined, after many careful experiments and verifications, that mass was not a constant. A new science grew up based on these new facts and equations derived from experiment.
Just as the old was called Newtonian Mechanics, the new might be called Einsteinian Mechanics. There seemed no possible way of reconciling the two. It was stated that Newtonian concepts were inadequate to account for observable fact except when velocities were very low and fairly constant, or time intervals were fairly short.
The Newtonian concept of mass as a constant was discarded and the new concept of mass-energy as a constant took its place. Both of these concepts are discussed in great detail in many existing works. It should not be necessary to cover that ground again. This article is devoted to a unification of the Newtonian "constant-mass" concept, and the modern or Einsteinian "mass-energy" concept.
Starting with purely Newtonian concepts and assertions, Sn, which is any material object, will be subjected to mathematical analysis. This analysis will bridge the heretofore unreconcilable gap between the Newtonian and the Einsteinian equations, and provide an expression for the mass of any material object which will be strictly in agreement with both.
It will lead also to a startling generalization on the nature of mass and the nature of the electron.
2.1 A material particle is defined to be a body so small that, for the purposes of our investigation the distances between its different parts may be neglected. (Clerk Maxwell, Matter & Motion, Art. VI.)
2.2 Sⁿ is used in this article to denote a system of material particles, (2.1); with the restriction imposed on Sⁿ that no particle be added to or taken from it during any analysis, and the restriction imposed on the particles that their mass remain constant. (This is the Newtonian restriction.) Then,
2.3 Sⁿ = m₁, m₂, . . ., mⁿ
3.1 Reference frame:—a coordinate system as described and studied in any book on solid analytics, having three, mutually perpendicular dimensions, X, Y, and Z.
3.2 Any analysis for one dimension that holds equally for the other two will use the letter, u, for the variable with the understanding that x, y, or z can be substituted for u throughout.
Then if
3.3 F = f(u); u = x,y,z
