This chapter has shown how we can formulate a value of G, the constant of gravitation, in terms of a fundamental charge component of the aether, the graviton, as being that something in the aether that provides dynamic balance for the Heisenberg jitter motion of the quantum underworld. That is a step of paramount importance, but my commentary here is directed to that 'example' I mentioned in my chapter 4 commentary, concerning Nature's duality in regard to certain phenomena.
It would hardly be possible to write a book having the title 'Physics without Einstein' and address the subject of gravity without at least including a non-relativistic explanation for the anomalous perihelion motion of the planet Mercury. Deriving an equation which explained that anomaly was, after all, the mainstay of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
Such an account has been included at pages 83 to 88. It was an explanation I had developed in the late 1950s and, indeed, it had already been presented in my booklet 'The Theory of Gravitation' which I published in 1960. It was a strong factor in support of my aether theory and it gave my confidence in presenting the 1969 effort under the title 'Physics without Einstein'.
Now, if the reader were to compare this account with the one presented in my later book 'Physics Unified' (1980), it would be evident that I have discovered a different explanation for the perihelion anomaly, one which, by three-dimensional aether theory, gives precisely the same planetary orbit as can be derived by transposing Einstein's four-space result into three-dimensional form. Indeed, it was the trigger of getting that discovery published by the U.K. Institute of Physics [1980b] that caused me to publish 'Physics Unified'.
The earlier theory concerned aether angular momentum as affected by planetary motion and the later theory concerned retardation of energy transfer as between sun and planet in causing the radial oscillation period of the planet to be very slightly different from the orbital period, thereby causing a slow but progressive advance of perihelion.
Can it be that both theories are correct? If so, what would that tell us? We would, in fact, then find that the term R in equation (5.9) of 'Physics without Einstein', the 'radius of space-time lattice of the planet', meaning the extent of its aether system which shares the motion of the planet, is a parameter that is determined by the duality condition.
If this is so then we have a physical reason which determines the boundary radius of an aether sphere nucleated by a planet. Note the discussion on p. 86 of 'Physics without Einstein'. We saw that to get the theory to fit with observation R for planet Mercury would need to be 10% greater than the physical radius of the planet. What determines that difference? Unlike the situation for body Earth there seems to be no data as to an ionosphere that I assumed might fix such a boundary for the Earth. So, logic says, in retrospect, that both theories hold and R is thereby determined as the value which gives the same perihelion advance on both theories.
Needless to say, I am tempted to see how such an argument can be applied to determine the Earth's aether radius. Something must fix that radius and though one might say it is the boundary of solid matter, one has to keep in mind that stars have a gaseous form, and if we then wonder how the Earth's atmosphere determines the boundary, one is left to speculate with little or no foundation on which to build. Lacking better data I can but draw attention to the section on 'perihelion motions' in the later chapter 8 and also to p. 38 of my 1960 booklet where I endeavored to resolve this issue. Certainly, in the light of what I said there I can see no reason why the argument I put forward here cannot stand as a valid account.
As it is I do not regard the anomalous planetary perihelion motion issue as one warranting the attention it has received from those who adhere to Einstein's beliefs. For my part I have set the stage for those who wish to take the argument further. All I say is that those who choose to research this topic should take note of what I said in my 1960 booklet 'The Theory of Gravitation' and merge that with the case I presented in the above-referenced 1980 Institute of physics paper.
I hold firm to my belief that the role of the aether can in no way be ignored if cosmologists are to make sense of what they really can see as our universe.