pdf files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or other pdf reader to view - free download here http://www.adobe.com
--> books on the aether theory
Dr. Louis Essen, D.Sc., F.R.S., has spent a lifetime working at the NPL on the measurement of time and frequency. He built the first caesium clock in 1955 and determined the velocity of light by cavity resonator, in the process showing that Michelson's value was 17km/s low. In 1959, he was awarded the Popov Gold Medal of the USSR Academy of Sciences and also the OBE.
Essen says that Einstein's theory of relativity is full of flaws and logical inconsistancies. See for example, his 1978 article in Wireless World here:
Click the download icon on the upper right side to download file from Opendrive.
His article "RELATIVITY - joke or swindle?" in Electronics & Wireless World, p. 126-127, February 1988 is herehttp://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm
The reference listed at the bottom of this article here
Essen, L. (1971) The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis, Oxford University Press (Oxford science research papers, 5). , booklet in which he questioned the modern interpretation of the special theory of relativity.
has been uploaded here: https://scifiles.opendrive.com/files?OV80NjcxMTI1NV9rMkJwZQ
Atomic Clocks Coming and Going, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 14, 46 (1977)
Michelson-Morley-Miller The Coverup
21st Century Science & Technology
link to The Coverup
The electromagnetic aether is NOT at absolute restAccording to many Einsteinian relativists, the aether in Lorentz's aether theory is supposed to be at absolute rest and aether drift experiments are supposedly designed to detect and measure absolute velocities. According to A. J. Kox's paper here:
AJKox-AHESc-1988.pdfthe concept of the aether being at absolute rest is meaningless, ie. its not at absolute rest in Lorentz's theory.
Note the footnote on page 74 in Kox's paper that says:
37 It should be emphasized that LORENTZ did not adhere to the idea of absolute space. In LORENTZ (1895) (sect. 2), for instance, he states that it is meaningless to talk about absolute rest of the ether and that the expression 'the ether is at rest' only means that the different parts of the ether do not move with respect to each other.
This is given as a reference:
1895 Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Korpern
(Leiden: Brill, 1895); repr. in CP, Vol. 5, pp. 1-138.
The 1906 reprint can be downloaded from Google books. Note the part on page 4 that says:
Dass von absoluter Ruhe des Aethers night die Rede sein kann, versteht sich wohl von selbst; der Ausdruck würde sogar nicht einmal Sinn haben. Wenn ich der Kurze wegen sage, der Aether ruhe, so ist damit nur gemeint, dass sich der eind Theil dieses Mediums night gegen den anderen verschiebe und dass alle wahrnehmbaren Bewegungen der Himmelskorper relative Bewegungen in Bezug auf den Aether seien.
OZLOFT's translation from German to English from
"That the discussion cannot be about the absolute rest of the aether is understandable in itself; the expression would not even have any meaning. If, due to brevity, I say that the aether rests [sic], by that it is only meant that a part of this medium is not shifting against the others and that all perceptible motion of heavenly bodies is to be relative motion in relation to the aether."
What is absolute rest or an absolute velocity? In Newtonian mechanics an absolute velocity would be the velocity of something relative to a point in space which you can't measure/detect based on Newtonian mechanics. Since the aether and space are two different things (in pre-Einsteinian physics), the velocity of something relative to the aether is NOT an absolute velocity. An analogy would be measuring the velocity of a ship relative to the ocean or the velocity of an airplane relative to the air. The oceans and atmosphere are obviously not at absolute rest and neither is the aether.
Motion between magnets and conductors is NOT relative
In the Introduction of Henri Bergson's book Duration and Simultaneity (Intro written by Herbert Dingle) Dingle explains that when a conductor moves in a magnetic field, the current changes immediately, and when the magnet is moved, there is a delay until the change in magnetic field reaches the conductor (note that the changing magnetic field can't go faster than the speed of light). A quote from the 16th page of the pdf file is shown below (page xxxii in the first paragraph). Dingle is refering to Einstein's 1905 article.
He took the relative motion of a magnet and coil of wire, in which in all observable respects, the current produced in the wire is the same whichever is moved. But, according to the theory which he then developed, that is not so if the bodies are far apart. If the coil is moved the current is observed immediatedly, and if the magnet is moved it is observed later. Synchronized clocks with the bodies would therefore distinguish the cases.
Duration and Simultaneity Introduction written by Herbert Dingle https://od.lk/f/OV85MzY5NDE4Ml8
Historical Papers. Note Builder's solution.
1. Geoffrey Builder (1957) Ether and Relativity.
Logical test of Einstein's theory of relative simultaneity
More evidence for absolute simultaneity
Toward a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories: experimental evidence for absolute simultaneity
S. A. Emelyanov
On the 7th page of the article the author argues that crackpots are bad, but iconoclasts are good.Kostlecky's website http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html
Einstein's Allies and Enemies: Debating Relativity in Germany, 1916-1920
by David E. Rowe
Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science vol. 251
This is an excellent article. It discusses anti-relativists in Germany in 1916-1920. One of them, Ernst Gehrcke gives evidence that Einstein stole Paul Gerber's work from 1898 by showing that "Gerber had obtained precisely the same formula Einstein had derived using general relativity" and the fact that "Gerber's publication is discussed in Mach's Mechanik (Mach, 1904, 201), and Einstein demonstrated his precise knowledge of the contents of this well-known book in his recent obiturary of Mach" (see pages 245-246 of the article).
Herbert Dingle was correct by Harry Ricker
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/2063601/physics/ricker11-HerbertDingleWasCorrect.pdf (158 KB)
Must read arguments against relativity by modern professors, engineers and others
Dialog about objections against the theory of relativity
Einstein's explanation of the twin paradox using General Relativity
Read Al Kelly's argument here http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/quest.htm
Even more of an embarrassment is the completely incorrect and bizarre bluff of Einstein in Naturwissenschaften (6th year, Heft 48, page 697-712, 1918) concerning the Twin Paradox.
In his 1951 article in Nature, Paul Dirac discusses a prefered frame of reference, applies quantum mechanics to the aether and says "with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether". From various writing of his it appears that Dirac doesn't seem to see the aether theory and Einstein�s relativity theory as in conflict with each other.
You can download a copy of the article here
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf041/sf041p18.htmDownload Marinov's book here for free
The physics textbook that I used at the University of Maryland claimed that the Ives Stillwell experiment supported Einstein's theory of Relativity. I was surprised to find an article in a 1938 issue of Electronics which claims it supports the aether theory. I looked at a lot of Herbert Ives' papers in the Journal of the Optical Society of America and found that he always uses the term Larmor-Lorentz theory, but never mention's Einstein's theory. Ives is known to be a supporter of the aether theory.One interpretation of the Ives Stillwell Experiment
Electronics June 1938 page 13
Electronics June 1938 page 14
Electronics June 1938 page 15
I found this interesting email here http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/16133.htm
The Deception Deepens. Falsification of experimental results relating to the Theory of Relativity.
From Al Kelly to Ivor Catt.
I am just satisfied that I published in detail the 'cooked' results of H
& K in 1996 in Monograph No 3 of the Institution of Engineers of Ireland.
Anything I emailed to you and others really is describing what is in that
paper. A later paper on the same subject which will reach a wider
audience is coming out in Phys Ess. in Dec 2000 (in press and late) .
Quoting any emails I sent to you would merely prolong the site you are
forming. The abstract I sent to you of the Phys Ess. paper would be
enough for the reader I suggest.
I repeat it here :-
Abstract.The original test results were not published by Hafele &
Al Kelly, 10june01
----- Original Message -----
From: ic <email@example.com>
To: > <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 12:06 AM
Subject: draft es/rel scandal
www.btinternet.com/~time.lord in the bibliography. It
The reference is on
----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor Catt <email@example.com
To: Al Kelly <firstname.lastname@example.org>; mikegi <email@example.com>
This is the kind of thing I intend to put on my website. Please help me.
Ivor Catt 6june01
The Deception Deepens
"'I see nobody on the road,' said Alice.
'I only wish I had such eyes,' the king remarked in a fretful tone. 'To be
able to see Nobody! And at that distance, too! Why, it's as much as I can
do to see real people, by this light!'"
"Pathological science often depends on experiments at the threshold of
detectability, or at the lowest margins of statistical significance. The
claims frequently emerge from a body of data that is selectively
wishful researchers unconsciously discard enough 'bad' data to make the
remaining 'good' points look important. That the measurements are at the
very threshold of sensitivity is an advantage, not an obstacle: data that
don't fit the theory are explained away; those they fit are lovingly
retained. - Peter Huber, "Galileo's Revenge", 1991, p27.
"No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I
persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects. .... .... the
continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a
rational extension of electromagnetic theory." - Louis Essen F.R.S., "Relativity and time signals", Wireless World, oct78, p44.
"The authors then proceed to make a statistical analysis of the frequency
comparisons made between the clocks, to obtain their final results. No
details of these comparisons are given, but the analysis is based on the
assumption that the frequency variations are random in nature, which
appears to be unlikely and is not in accord with my own experience.... the
experimental results given in their paper do not support these
predictons." - Louis Essen, "Atomic Clocks Coming and Going", Creation Research Society
Quarterly, 14, 46 (1977)
"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time
gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything .... the
difference between theory and experiment is disturbing."
- Hafele, Secret United States Navval Observatory internal report, 1971.
Obtained by A G Kelly two decades later under the Freedom of Information
In my article "The Conquest of Truth", Electronics and Wireless World,
jan98, I point out that all four so-called acid tests of the validity of
the Theory of Relativity are disputed. This article summarises a continuing
deception practised by the Establishment including the journal "Nature" on
a later much vaunted experiment.
The theory of Relativity states that increased velocity causes clocks to
slow down. Two aeroplanes carrying the world's most accurate were flown around the world in opposite directions, and then compared with each other and with a stationary clock. The experimental results were then falsified, and Nature and other journals wrongly concluded that Relativity had been experimentally verified. Louis Essen, who became Fellow of the
Royal Society in honour of his achievement in developing these (caesium)
clocks, was prevented from publishing his caveat, that the clocks were
less accurate than claimed.
Decades later, under the Freedom of Information Act, Dr. A G Kelly obtained the raw data from the experiments, which showed that the wrong conclusion had been published. Further, he obtained an internal memo by one of the authors a year earlier, when the author had written that the experiment could not lead to any valid conclusions.
Ivor Catt 8june01
Will the new editor of Nature now belatedly publish this information? - IC.
CcNature (Editor: Philip Campbell) via firstname.lastname@example.org 12june01
The Farce of Physics by Bryan G. Wallace
This book discusses experiments which show inconsistencies in interplanetary radar data, how they conflict with Einstein's relativity theory and the suppression of this and other publications by the establishment.
Table of contents here http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie.de/2013/02/the-farce-of-physics-2/
Note the part here in the "Relativity Revolution" chapter:
"Two scientists were dismissed because they discovered some facts which contradicted Einstein. It is not only dangerous to speak against Einstein, but which is worse it is impossible to publish anything which might be considered as contradiction to his theory."
Bryan G. Wallace's paper from Spectroscopy Letters 1969 pages 361-367
The constancy of the speed of light is one of the main postulates of Special Relativity.
Progress in Space-Time Physics 1987
Edited by James Paul Wesley
A review of the book from Foundations of Physics, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1989
Progress in Space-Time Physics preface to page 35
pages 269-273 Book Review
Einstein's Relativity the Greatest Fallacy in the Twentieth Century
by Sharad D. Tipnis