The thorny way of truth - Free Energy Community

- 129 -but it certainly will affect the angular moraentuni in orbit unlessthe velocity moment varies so as to assure constancy of angularmomentuii. This is a topic that is not adequately considered in thetextbook treatment of relativity, the real point being whether we .,are concerned. with a physical reference frame for theelectromagnetic phenomena or an arbitrary 'observer' frame. Seereference [4] for further comment on this problem.In trying to clarify the uncertainty in this one is also^confronted with the issue of how energy is transferred between sun ^and planet. If, for example, the planet describes a true circularorbit relative to the sun as centre, then we know that no energy isbeing exchanged as between the gravitational potential and thekinetic energy of the planet. However, if there is a smallsuperimposed radial oscillation as there is for an elliptical , ,orbit, then such energy transfer must occur. Does this energy thentravel at the speed of light along a thin line drawn between the ,:sun's centre and the centre of the planet? If it does there will ^be some retardation of the action and the radial oscillations willbe slightly slower than the orbital cycle. This means that therewill be a progressive advance of the perihelion, quite apart fromany that is determined by the 4-space character of the basic c, ;^»geodesic path. How, then, is this allowed for in Einstein's.theory? .. . ^,This is a particularly relevant point, because Paul Gerber [51 f ;1898 derived the 43 arc sec. per century perihelion advance of -inMercury on exactly this assumption. His analysis was in error by afactor of two-thirds, but the 43 arc sec. value could still applyif the energy exchange at the speed of light were to be alongcurved energy flux lines. This is easily proved [6] and it ismanifestly more logical to have energy flowing around flux contoursrather than concentrating itself into a thin straight path, asGerber assumed. :,'.