AFTER GALILEO BACK IN ITALY II
ANSWERS TO "BARTOCCI INQUIRY"
Aspden
Bartocci
Bergman
Galeczki
Gruffat
Guy
Hasslberger
Kelly
Larson
Macri’ (Italian)
Marmet
McCarthy
Monti (Italian)
Muller
Munch
Pappas
Phipps
(Selleri)
Spavieri
Spolter
Theocharis
Tolchel’nikova
Wesley
INTRODUCTION
On May 1999 the international conference"Galileo
Back in
Italy II" took place in Bologna, mostly aimed to discuss criticism
against
Special (and General) Relativity.
Here it is the conference’s announcement:
International Conference "Galileo Back in Italy  II"
For the Return of Rationality in Modern Physics
Bologna, Italy, 2628 May 1999
In spite of great technological success, physics at
the
end of the century has come under more and more criticism. It is
charged
with having lost its character as an experimental science,
becoming too
abstract and mathematical.
P.K. Feyerabend considers this science mostly "very
dull,
and more deceptive, than that of XVI or XVII centuries was". R.
Thom remarks
that in it there is "a horrible mixture between incorrect
fundamental concepts
and a fantastic numerical precision", pretending to get "very
rigorous
numerical results from theories which conceptually are nonsense".
The unquestionable practical success of physics has
actually
minimized the critical interest in fundamental postulates and
their interpretation,
so that there is a whole series of conceptual riddles which force
a reexamination
of the foundations of physics today.
Roughly speaking, these fall into two great schemes:
the
relativistic, and quantum theories. In both, the common notions of
space,
time and causality are so deeply modified, that a whole new
philosophy
has been built in order to support the view that Nature cannot be
explained
by classical principles of rationality, built upon the three
intellectual
categories.
As Nobel prize winner R.P. Feynman asserts, one has
to
"accept Nature as She is  absurd". The renouncing of the
"adaequatio rei
et intellectus", which should be the primary aim of any scientific
research,
has led to the result that the great majority of physicists have
lost all
hope of being able to understand Nature. Instead, an unpleasant
kind of
resignation has taken over.
But a critical reaction is developing. Criticism of
the
"Copenhagen Interpretation" of quantum mechanics had begun already
in the
70s; that of "special" relativity has endured since 1905, but it
was always
vehemently and systematically suppressed, to the point that this
theory
has now become "the holy of holies" of modern physics. But the
very success
of Einstein’s point of view has insinuated into the heart of
physics, the
arbitrary definitions typical of modern formalistic mathematics
with its
presumption to be free, in its conceptual foundations, from any
kind of
intuition.
Furthermore, the disappearance of the concept of an
ether,
as a result to the Einsteinian "solution" of electromagnetic
problems,
has made it impossible to prove that in the physical properties of
"empty
space" there might be an argument against the claims of
inexplicability
of microphysical phenomena.
We ask all scientists who find some reasonable elements in the above, to take part in the international conference, which will take place in Bologna, Italy, May 2628, 1999.
For further information please contact:
Umberto Bartocci Roberto Monti
Dipartimento di Matematica Università Istituto TESRE  CNR
Via Vanvitelli, 1 Via P. Gobetti, 101
06100 Perugia  Italy 40129 Bologna  Italy
Tel.: 00390755002494 Tel.: 00390516398702
Fax: 00390755855024 Fax: 00390516398724
Email: bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it Email:
monti@tesre.bo.cnr.it
Scientific Committee: Umberto Bartocci, Patrick Cornille, George Galeczki, Rocco Vittorio Macrì, Roberto Monti, James Paul Wesley.
The Conference is sponsored by the Monti America Corporation.
[This announcement appeared in "21st Century Science &
Technology",
Vol. 12, N. 1, Spring 1999, pp. 8687]
The conference was a very interesting event, since it allowed to gather up together and to make personally know each other many relativity dissidents. Nevertheless, the assembler of this "virtual book", Umberto Bartocci, felt that a great part of the presented criticism was diminished by some misinterpretation of Einstein’s theories, and felt himself obliged to produce for the forthcoming "Proceedings" of the conference a paper intitled "Most common misunderstandings about Special Relativity". Furthermore, after an epistular exchange with James Paul Wesley (which is here enclosed), he sent, either by Internet or by mail, the following "Inquiry" to many phyisicists known for their critical aptitude towards the present foundations of physics.
"Dear friend,
shortly after the Bologna’s meeting, I received a letter from
James
Paul Wesley in which he asserted, between other things, that:
"Contrary to your apparent belief, "special relativity" presents obvious horrendous mathematical contradictions and errors, as pointed out by thousands of individuals since 1905 onward".
I answered to him saying that "after 20 years of study of the question, and to my best knowledge, I have found that all presumed "contradictions" were just due to misinterpretations of relativity from the side of the relativity detractors. I have written in a hurry the inclosed paper for the Bologna’s Proceedings, even with the aim of a public answer to you, and to all our friends, who unfortunately insist in defending wrong sides of this question. Of course, I can have made some mistake, and then I would be happy to know which".
Furthermore, I asked to him:
1) could you choose the best argument against relativity between this thousand that you say (and I mean now a mathematical contradiction which has already been put in evidence by somebody in the past)?
2) what is, in your opinion, the actual best argument (whether experimental, or theoretical, or logical, or mathematical, as you wish) that one could produce today against relativity?
I added I would have proposed to answer to these same questions even to other friends fighting our same battle (but not necessarily), and so I send to you this letter, and the aforesaid paper, hoping that you will be willing to help me in this inquiry (and to correct my possible mistakes).
Thank you very much indeed for your attention,
best
greetings from yours most sincerely
Perugia, 15 July
1999
Umberto
Bartocci"
This "challenge" originated a very intense and interesting exchange of opinions, of which thereafter you have a record (which, in general, does not include successive comments).
Have a nice reading.
November 1999 (Umberto Bartocci)
HAROLD ASPDEN
Subject: Re: Your
inquiry.
Date:
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:08:11 +0100
From:
haspdn@globalnet.co.uk
To:
"umberto bartocci" <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
Dear Professor Bartocci,
When I first read your message inviting comment as to the validity of SRT I decided not to comment. However, I later have had occasion to send an EMail comment to David Bergman who also received your message, but on the subject of inertia, rather than SRT. I think it is appropriate to send you a copy of a followup message that I have just sent him, as I make reference to your communication.
The message reads:
Thank you for your prompt response to my comments on inertia.
I will respond more fully when I have had time to digest the
reference
you
gave to the CSS Web Site.
I did not join in the exchanges on the SRT issue raised by Umberto Bartocci but I do offer the following comments and will send a copy of this message to him.
Einstein introduced his theory of relativity back in 1905 by a paper on Electrodynamics and one on Inertia. The latter was entitled: 'Does the Inertia of a Body depend upon its Energy Content?' The popular opinion of the scientific community is that proof of the relationship E=Mc(squared) is proof of Einstein's theory. I have never accepted that, because the relationship is derivable from classical 19th century theory. One obtained E = 3/4 times Mc(squared) by following J J Thomson's teachings on the subject as applied to an electron, but he assumed that the charge was all confined to a spherical surface, as if the charge form were a conductive sphere in the laboratory. One can easily show that, if the charge is distributed inside that sphere so as to set up a constant electrostatic pressure within that sphere, then that 3/4 factor becomes unity and the normal E=Mc(squared) formula results.
So, the issue of whether SRT is valid or not depends upon other evidence and, to my mind, the notion that it explains the null result of the MichelsonMorley experiment is not such evidence. The physics community today is getting all excited about BoseEinstein Condensation (BEC), the perfect quantum fluid which, by experiments on the Quantized Hall Effect, gives us a wonderful way of measuring the finestructure constant. The theory I developed for that constant some 40 and more years ago is an aether model closely resembling that quantum fluid. The theory gave the finestructure constant to part per million accuracy and that theoretical finding, confirmed by computer analysis by The National Measurement Laboratory in Australia, was reported by that laboratory in 1972 in Physics Letters. So the aether is a perfect quantum fluid. In the 19th century it was thought the aether exhibited the properties of a solid and of a fluid, a confusing proposition, so Einstein abolished the need for the aether when he first appeared on the scene back in 1905. He can be excused for not appreciating at the time that the properties of the fluid crystal if attributed as a perfect quantum fluid form in the aether could explain that MichelsonMorley finding. Not surprisingly we have since seen the computer industry build on the use of fluid crystal technology and we are seeing fundamental metrology concerning h, c and e using the version of that adaptable and structured charge system in low temperature semiconductor technology based on the BoseEinstein condensate.
That said, I admit I have no real patience with the struggle to
argue
the pros and cons of SRT and the effort to find a winner amongst a
forum
of the 1000 objections mentioned by Professor Bartocci.
However,
in view of your concern with inertia and my note to you on that
subject,
I will just draw attention to a short phrase in each of those 1905
papers
by Einstein. In section 10 of the Electrodynamics paper he
writes
under the heading 'Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron'
and along
comes the sentence:
'As the electron is to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may
not give off any energy in the form of radiation, the energy
withdrawn
from the electrostatic field must be put down as equal to the
energy of
motion of the electron.'
Now, surely that is an absurd statement. How can
therelativistic
mass formula which he derives depend upon the history of the
electron's
acceleration always involving slow acceleration? Where does the
threshold
set in between 'slow' and 'fast enough for radiation to occur'?
It destroys his whole case, though my argument that an electron
cannot
radiate its energy at all can save the situation linking
relativistic mass
increase and E=Mc(squared). However, as you will have seen,
my argument,
then gives directly that E=Mc(squared) formula without needing
Einstein's
transformation theory. So then we come to his 1905 paper on
Inertia and,
to one's extreme surprise, we find he derives an equation
concerning which
he immediately notes: 'If a body gives off energy L in the form of
radiation,
its mass diminishes by L/c(squared).' I submit, therefore, that
here in
the same year 1905 he presented two papers which contradict one
another,
but yet he has carried the scientific world with him on this
energymass
relationship and left the good work of J J Thomson on this topic
to be
buried along with the aether. So my message to Professor
Bartocci
is to say that the best case against SRT is Einstein's own words,
his contradicting
assertions on the subject of relativistic mass and the inertia of
energy
which are to be found in his 1905 papers! Einstein's theory
of relativity
is best forgotten, but Einstein's good name looks like it can
carry due
weight in connection with the 'BoseEinstein Condensate'.
That is if the physics community ever wake up to the fact that
they
are getting close to having produced a laboratory model that
replicates
the true form of the real aether, having, on the one hand, the
laboratory
experiment which measures the basic quantum regulator, the
finestructure
constant, and, on the other hand, but hidden from view, the real
aether
which truly determines that constant and regulates the electron
activity
in atoms.
With best regards,
Harold Aspden
UMBERTO BARTOCCI
[From a letter to George Galeczki]
I would prefer instead to make some final considerations about the points which were at the beginning of our exchange of opinions, hoping not only that doing so my personal position in this occasion will be no more misunderstood,  as somebody did, as I would have become a supporter of relativity!  but mostly hoping that at last we will be able to share some important starting point for our common critics to nowadays physics.
One should not forget that it all started with some opinions of Wesley, which I found outstandingly wrong, outside any possibility of "freedom of thought".
(A) First big mistake, at the historicalsociological level:
"I would like to take exception to the claim that the majority of
physicists
still believe in special relativity [SR]: according to my actual
pole,
sampling over 100 physicists’ beliefs, less than 5 percent still
believe
in special relativity. Why discuss a dead issue? Why beat a dead
horse?"
(27.Mar.99)
Quite on the contrary, I remember for instance
Santilli’s
efforts to introduce at least a "scientific ethics" in the
scientific world
(namely, just to quote some suggestion: not to reject a priori the
publication
of countercurrent papers, remember as scientists the duty to
answer to
criticism, and so on), and he estimated at the time that less than
1 over
2000 answered positively to his call! The truth is that the
greatest majority
of physicists believe that ONLY A CRANK WOULD CHALLENGE EINSTEIN,
and that
they believe that we all are a little crazy!!
Perhaps I am wrong, and it is true that only 5% of
physicists
control the minds of the other 90% (I leave apart, rather
optimistically,
the 5%, taking into consideration our small active group!), but
then the
"scandal" would be even greater than everybody on the Earth would
have
ever dreamt of! The plain "fact", under everybody’s eyes, is that
relativity
is always there, considered by common belief as one of the
greatest scientific
achievement of our century, and perhaps of all times: a theory
"without
the shadow of a doubt" (Clifford Will), or in which "a doubt would
be the
same as a doubt about Copernican system" (Tullio Regge).
(B) second mistake, at the logicalmathematical level:
"Contrary to your apparent belief, SR presents obvious horrendous
mathematical
contradictions and errors, as pointed out by thousands of
individuals since
1905 onward."
(4.Jul.99)
As you know, I have made this opinion the object of an explicit question in my questionary. Well, not one of these thousand "contradictions" came out until now! Wesley sent to me the indication that, in his opinion: "The Lorentz transformation do not even form a group in 3 space and 1 time dimension" (4.Aug.99), which is really unbelievable, since one introduces "by definition" a "Lorentz group", as a (big) subgroup of Poincare’s group! To this objection I answered in my mail of 13.Aug.99, saying that "Lorentz transformations are "by definition" the socalled homogeneous isometries [timeorientation preserving], and Wesley perhaps simply confuses the special Lorentz transformations with the general Lorentz transformations. It is obvious that when you take the simplest case of Lor. transf., the ones which are in all textbooks, with y’=y and z’=z, you are simply considering a subgroup of the whole Lorentz group, and when you take for instance x’=x and z’=z then you get another subgroup, which is different from the first one!  so, when you multiply one transf. which is in one subgroup with a transf. which is in the other subgroup, then you obviously get a transf. which is not in both subgroups! This is simple group theory, that one learns in the 1st year of the university, and it cannot be a matter of opinion!".
You tried to give me another one of these arguments (I would like to say, pseudoarguments!), I mean your reference to an argument contained in a book by Walter Theimer, a scientist unknown to me (your fax of 23.Jul.99). But then that argument was not, to say the least, very clear, and in truth you too acknowledged immediately this circumstance: "My yesterday evening comment on your question 1 is incomplete, thus not efficient" (fax of 24.Jul.99). Furthermore, you admitted at last that: "SR is indeed a nightmare, but a physical, rather than a mathematical one"; and that: "I understand your feelings very well, since many SR critics are wrong, and since errors from the side of critics are amplified by the asymmetry of the situation" (mail of 23.Aug.99).
With these last words, you gave me reason twice, acknowledging not only the presence of many errors in our field, but even the "asymmetry" of the situation. The truth is that we are just a few against a multitude, a multitude which Wesley estimates 5% !! May I add that, if it is very human to make mistakes, why however should one insist so much on them?, after all this would be counterproductive for the whole our "cause" against SR...
(C) third mistake, at the experimentalphysical level:
"You make the strange claim that SR can explain the old stuff, the
empirical facts, of Roemer, Bradley, Sagnac, etc.; whereas, in
fact, SR
flatly and explicitly contradicts these facts."
(27.Mar.99)
Here the question becomes to be more interesting from a scientific point of view, and important. I admit that there is some possibility that I am wrong, but as far as that matter like the majority of other physicists and mathematicians! But until now I did not receive any specifical technical indication that some single line, some single computation, in my paper "Most common misunderstandings..." was wrong. I do not take into account philosophical, epistemological, and so on, objections, in which I include for instance your objection that: "an IFR has to be a massive structure" (your mail of 9.Aug.99). With such a kind of "requirements" that a physical theory should satisfy, I do very often agree, but I even believe that it is useless to express our dissatisfaction between us. We all in our small group would perhaps agree, but the point is to persuade of this dissatisfaction other people, and that can be only achieved by showing that SR is plainly wrong from the experimental point of view (there is no possibility to question the "logical" validity of SR!!), either in some of its assumptions, or in some of its predictions, but it will not be an easy task!
[After all, let me say that, if Wesley’s opinions were true, then all our efforts would be very much diminished, since the struggle against relativity would be very easy to be carried on, which is definitively not true!! To defeat relativity would be instead a major task in the history of the scientific thought, even for all general cultural consequences that it would have...]
I wish to point out that the last words of Wesley concern an assertion about SR ("SR flatly and explicitly contradicts these facts"), and not about any physical truth, and so they can be discussed with rigorous logical mathematical methodology, without any concern about "experiments" and so on. Of course, since this is an assertion about what SR could foresee or not, its proof should presume in advance that the man who is doing that assertion has well understood what SR is, and how one can deduce right consequences from its postulates  but this, I must frankly confess it, in my now very long experience, is a task that most antirelativistic physicists seem unable to do correctly! I ask to you again, for instance, what are your comments about the Remark at the end of my section 5, which was one of the most outstanding Stefan’s mistake  and it was even published in a printed form!  one of those great misunderstandings about the exact meaning of relativistic concepts, in which I see that unfortunately many other friends fall in?! (and excuse, but let me say that even the alleged "symmetry" of the travel of the two "twins" is one of these great misunderstandings  but, please, why one should wish to win the battle against Einstein using this kind of "weak" arguments, and not to go into the real battlefield, that of the experiments, like for instance Cornille does, and, just to quote one possibility, of the presumed "symmetry" of the electromagnetic phenomenology?!)
I hope that you will acknowledge that about Bradley’s aberration, in particular, you seemed at first willing to defend Wesley’s opinion, for instance when you sayed that: "According to SR, Dopplereffect and stellar aberration are companion effects. The Doppler effect, however, is a function of relative velocity, while Bradley’s aberration is a function of the orbital velocity of the earth around the sun, but clearly the relative velocity earthstar is different from the orbital earth’s velocity" (your fax of 18.Jun.99). I believe to have answered quite well to this objection in my paper (see in particular Remark 1 in section 7), showing that in relativity aberraton is just a "differential" effect, and that there is in fact a difference between the classical and the relativistic point of view, but unfortunately experiments aimed to find what point of view would exactly be true are impossible to be performed!
[I believe that a possibility to check whether "relativistic aberration" is true or not  remember that SR prescribes just the invariance of the "speed" of light from the velocity of the source, and not of the "velocity" of light!  is described in footnote N. 21 of my paper: "This phenomenon could perhaps be the conceptual ground for some experiment aimed to compare SR’s predictions with analogous aethertheoretic expectations, since one could suppose that it would be natural, in an aetherframe, to have total independence of the light’s velocity from the velocity of the source. One could think for instance to use the circular platform of section N. 3 for sending a light’s ray from a directional laser source, placed in the border of the platform, towards the centre, and then to check whether this ray arrives exactly in this point, or it is instead dragged from the velocity, as SR would predict!"]
During our discussion, you said to me that I was excessive in the role I choosed of "advocatus diaboli", and I can admit that perhaps my action was "politically" inopportune, since it could have the effect to diminish rather than strengthen our group. But I deeply believe that if one makes so many obviously wrong assertions, then most of our possible interlocutors would totally reject any other claim from that person, and even from the whole party to which he belongs, namely all the antirelativistic party, which I try to defend, and to make really grow up...
It remains to discuss the possible best strategy for
defeating
relativity, and I wish to defend my proposed point of view (which
does
not share any enthusiastic admiration for SR, as Wesley thinks!),
starting
from a declaration coming from the "Annals of Physics", that one
can find
in one of Stefan’s book ("The Thorny Way of Truth", Vol. I, p.
214): "As
you must surely realize, SR has been verified in an enormous
number of
different experimental situations. Any attempt to modify it must
therefore
not only demonstrate some deviation from experimental work but
also must
show how the large body of supporting evidence can be
reinterpreted or
shown to be incorrect. This is, I well recognize, an enormous
task. But
the reinterpretation of the work of the last century need not to
be expected
of minor importance".
As a matter of fact, I do not agree with this
journal’s
aptitude, but I supposed that the previous words were in some
sense true,
or enough true, not supposing that the physicists were all so
deeply blind
or cheaters! Then, starting from this hypothetical truth, or even
half
a truth, I tried:
 first, to find alternative explanations for the presumed
"successes"
of relativity;
 second, to propose to look at some other phenomenology,
different
from the usual one, in order to find experimental contradictions
of relativity
with Nature.
Then, the only possibility which seemed practicable
to
me, trying to avoid all usual well known objections of Einstein’s
supporters,
was to point out the asymmetry of electromagnetic phenomenology.
If there
was an "absolute velocity" of the Earth, of such a big order, as
300 Km/sec,
as you suppose, but even a smaller one, around 9 Km/sec, I think
that it
should have be detected by electromagnetic experiments; but then
neither
Cardone did find anything corresponding to a velocity of that
size. Of
course, there is the possibility that even Maxwell
electrodynamics, in
its "classical interpretation"  on which all the "predictions"
known to
me are founded  is completely wrong, but then I cannot go
personally
any further, since I do not know any other alternative theories
(like for
instance Weber’s electrodynamics, and so on). I would be very
curious to
see what other electrodynamics would predict for the interactions
in the
classical "comoving cases", one of which has been carefully
studied in
the paper "Symmetries and asymmetries...", by Mamone Capria and
myself,
to which I often make reference. If these other theories too would
foresee
a non zero effect, then one should start to accept indeed the
possibility
that Descartes and Leibniz were not so wrong (and today Hayden, or
Tewari),
and that the relative velocity earthaether is zero, or very near
to zero...
The other possibility left, the one which for
instance
Monti supports, is that the previous assertion of "Annals of
Physics" is
not true, and that relativity has not so many experiments in its
favour
(perhaps not even a single one!), the contrary as it is written in
every
textbook. It seems to me that even in some recent words of Selleri
one
can see some hint that we are in front of a very big "fraud". Your
words
are even more clear in this direction: "You seem to be more
concerned with
your suspicions regarding some experiments of Marinov, than with
the systematic
falsifications of the data by blackmailed and/or corrupted
Einstein believers"
(your mail of 15.Aug.99). Perhaps this is true, but I just cannot
accept
it "a priori" completely, because I continue to believe in some
sense in
the objectivity of science, and in the moral qualities of
scientists; a
world that after all I love, and I would be very surprised to have
to acknowledge
instead that it is very corrupted, as the world of politics, of
economy,
and of historians and press men...
I feel that the struggle in this second direction
would
be harder than in the first one, but of course everybody is free
to choose
the way he feels more corresponding to the "truth", and I
sincerely wish
all success to all people trying to restore rationality in modern
physics,
either in a way or in the other...
I thank you always very much for your attention,
best greetings, from yours most sincerely
Umberto Bartocci
Summing up:
1) There are no mathematical contradictions in SR, which is quite a coherent theory.
2) In order to defeat SR, one has to look for his possible experimental failures, which is perhaps a task not so easy, since it would requiry measurements performed in two different (almost) inertial reference frames really moving one with respect to the other. All alleged proofs in favour of SR are in my opinion INDIRECT proofs, most presuming that Earth is not at rest with respect to the "aether"; one should check more the validity of the principle of relativity for electromagnetic phenomena, the "induction" that forced Einstein to propose this principle is just a very special case in Maxwell theory, which in general is not relativistic, in its "classical" interpretation. Experiments of the kind of the so called "Rowlands inverse experiment", often discussed by Stefan Marinov and Francisco Muller, could perhaps show at last that SR is physically wrong.
In conclusion, I completely agree with Del Larson’s and McCarthy’s opinions below:
"If we try to come up with theoretical arguments to show how special relativity is wrong, we will lose. SR has been studied and celebrated for generations now. If there was a theoretical flaw it would have been found long ago ... from a mathematical (and therefore theoretical) sense, special relativity is completely consistent and correct. Arguing that point merely shows a misunderstanding of the theory".
"Some people think it's silly to argue that it's just a big conspiracy of coincidences that electromagnetism should exhibit so many properties that are unique to mediaincluding interference, Doppler, Lorentzian retardations, Sagnac effect, aberration, refraction, diffraction, amplitude, frequency, etc. If you don't believe electromagnetism is a media process, then it must seem as if this allegedly intangible force of the universe was deliberately endowed with a plethora of media characteristics just to fool people like Maxwell, Huygens, Lorentz, Bradley, Young, Fizeau, and Sagnac".
References:
U. Bartocci, M. Mamone Capria, "Symmetries and Asymmetries in
Classical
and Relativistic Electrodynamics", Foundations of Physics, 21, 7,
1991,
pp. 787801;
U. Bartocci, "Most common misunderstandings about Special
Relativity",
to appear in the Proceedings of the International Conference
"Galileo Back
in Italy II", Bologna, 1999.
Umberto Bartocci
Dipartimento di Matematica  Universita’
06100 Perugia  Italy
bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it
DAVE BERGMAN
Subject: Errors in SRT
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 16:19:22 0400
From: Dave Bergman <DBergman@compuserve.com>
To: umberto bartocci <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
Dear Professor Bartocci,
Thank you for including me in your message about SRT.
I think that the best argument against SRT is the one given by
Einstein
himself. He says that the Second Postulate is "quite
irreconcilable"
with
the first. A translation into English states:
"In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall call
the
Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further
assumption,an
assumption which is at first sight quite irreconcilable with the
former
onethat light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c
which
is
independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body." [The
Principle
of Relativity, Original Papers by A. Einstein and H. Minkowski,
translated into English by M. N. Saha and S. N. Bose, University
of
Calcutta, 1920]
Einstein does not say WHY the two postulates are "quite
irreconcilable."
You should determine this for yourself or see my writings.
If
you knew why they are irreconcilable, you would understand that
Einstein
has departed from the Axiomatic Method that is essential in
science.
By assuming two postulates that cannot be reconciled, Einstein abandoned the Scientific Method and the logical basis for science. This error was repeated by Niels Bohr in 1913 with the result that most of fundamental physics of the Twentieth Century must be replaced with scientific models and theories.
The nextbest argument against SRT is the superior theory offered by Common Sense Science to replace SRT.
The principle result of Einstein's error has been to perpetuate
confusion
over the concept of inertia. While his theory provided a way to
include
the socalled "relativistic effects" of mass increase and length
contraction,
which were not predicted by Maxwell's theory due to errors in the
Maxwell
equation for magnetic induction, these results have recently been
properly
developed from first principles and the fundamental laws of
electrodynamics. The new theory is an explanation for the
origin
of
inertial mass and Newton's laws of mechanics. As Marnisek
has
stated with regard to papers reviewed at the Cologne Conference of
1997,
=========================================
"A Causal Explanation of "Inertial Force"
"Bergman succeeded in showing that inertia is not an intrinsic
property
of
matter in the sense of inertial mechanics and that the socalled
inertial
forces are real forces. His argument is not based on a
conception
analysis
of axioms of classical mechanics but on a quasielectrodynamic
mechanism
for moving charged particles which he showed to be the cause for
the inertial
effect. The quantity of inertial force depends upon velocity
and
acceleration. Bergman's causal explanation of inertial
forces as
real, selfinduced reaction forces is based on electrodynamic
effects on
the spinning charged ring model. According to this
explanation, inertial
mass is a derived concept and not a fundamental one. Because
primary
electrodynamic force laws determine inertial mass, force is
necessarily
a
fundamental concept in physics." [Johann Marinsek, "Descartes, the
Inventor of the Principle of Inertia," Convegno Cartesio e la
scienza 15961996
Perugia, Sept. 47, 1997]
=========================================
Upon request, I will supply you with papers of the theory to
replace
SRT.
Also, in about two weeks I will be mailing the next issue of
"Foundations
of Science" to all subscribers, including yourself. This
issue
carries an
article titled "Origins of Inertial Mass" that summarizes the main
points
of the new electrodymics.
Best Regards,
Dave Bergman
Common Sense Science
CLARENCE DULANEY
Subject: Simple
Argument
Against STR
Date:
Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:21:51 0700 (PDT)
From:
Clarence Dulaney <dulaneyc_98@yahoo.com>
To:
Umberto Bartocci <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
Dear Umberto,
Our colleagues have been presenting arguments against
STR that depend on the definition of terms such as
"invariant" and "covariant".
I think there is a much simpler argument concerning
inertial frames.
Principle 1 of STR, quoting Max Born "There are an
infinite number of systems of reference (inertial
systems) moving uniformly and rectilinearly with
respect to each other, in which all physical laws
assume the simplest form (originally derived for
absolute space or the stationary ether.)"
I submit that there is not a single such frame. Any
such system would have had to be moving at a constant
speed since the beginning of time. Any other system
would have to have been accelerated (positive or
negatively) to achieve constant speed, thus defeating
the "uniformly and rectilinearly" restriction.
Thus, even if the mathematics and other machinations
of STR are correct, they are based on a flawed
principle. Thus, STR is at best only an approximation.
This is exactly what the Relativists have claimed for
the Newtonian, Galilean mechanics.
Best Regards,
Clarence Dulaney
GEORGE GALECZKI
Subject: connection test
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:06:03 +0200
From: "George Galeczki" <ncgaleczge@netcologne.de>
To: <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
Very dear Umberto,
this is just a test of my recent internet connection and an
opportunity
to
give you my address. We returned yesterday from a 12 days vacation
in
Brenzone sul Lago (on the east bank of Lago di Garda) and found in
my mail box your brief. Thanks a lot for the nice pictures which
will remind
me on the BolognaConference 1999. I shall comment within several
days
your opinions on the Bradley abberation , as well as your
contribution
to the conference. Anyhow, stellar aberration shows clearly that
the velocity
of light depends on the absolute (in 1st approximation)velocity
of the
observer (earth), rather than of the source or on the
relative
velocity
between source and observer. This undoubtly disproves the
lightvelocity
postulate of SRT, which claims independence on both source and
detector
velocities.
I expect from you to realize the arguments based on the absence of
"Thomas precession" a necessary consequence of the group
structure of
Lorentz transformations in (3 + 1)D  thus disqualifying SRT as a
physical
theory.
There are different ways to show the untenability of SRT, but this
one is
best suited for peaple like you, who are mathematically educated.
You are perfectly right in your criticism of some (many)
dissidents,
but
don´t exagerate playing the "advocatus diaboli"!
I´m grateful to you for organizing the BolognaConference,
which
allowed me to meet Francisco Müller and others in person.
Wishing you all the best for the holiday season,
very
sincerely
yours,
George
Subject: Re: your
two
questions
Date:
Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:44:58 +0200
From:
"George Galeczki" <ncgaleczge@netcologne.de>
To:
"umberto bartocci" <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
Carissimo Umberto,
I received this morning the mail containing your letter to Paul,
his
answer, as well as the preliminary version of your contribution to
the
Bologna conference. Well, the rôle of the "advocatus
diaboli" is
a very necessary one and I, myself, have played it for a couple of
years
in the eighties.
Concerning your two explicit questions:
1) There have been just a few rather than tausends people
during the
past nine decades who pointed out, or hinted at MATHEMATICAL
contradictions
in SRT. One among them was Walter Theimer, the author of "Die
Relativitätstheorie:
Lehre, Wirkung, Kritik" (A. Francke, Bern and München, 1977).
He observed
that the definition of light velocity in two IFR´s in the
SRT scenario
requires: c = x / t = x´ / t , which is
impossible if
(x´; t´) and (x ; t ) are related by Lorentz
transformations
(LT) and THE UNITS OF LENGTH AND TIME IN THE TWO IFR`S ARE TO BE
THE SAME.
McCrea and other SRTCardinals mention that this were possible if
one makes
an "ADJUSTMENT OF MEASUREMENT UNITS".
There are many valid physical, logical and METAPHYSICAL (which SRT
actually is!) critical works on SRT, which gain value in view of
the present
undefendable criticism.
2) The empirical absence of "Thomas precession" means that
gamma
(kinematical) = 1 , or that the constant µ in:
x´ = (x  vt)(1  µv^2) ; t´ = (t  vµx)(1
 µv^2) equals zero: µ = 0,
which reduces the transformations to : X´ = x  vt ;
t´
= t . However, if mass changes with velocity, even Galilean
relativity
fails.
There are many good and valid arguments disproving STR. (see my
list
of over 25 publications on this subject.) I mention here just the
unability
to define potential energy and, as a consequence, EXTENDED ( i.e.
no POINTLike)
SYSTEMS, which makes "relativistic thermodynamics" in particular
impossible!
(see my paper in the Proceedings of the Cologne Workshop). The
"Thomas
precession" argument is good since it leads to a real dilemma: IF
IT EXISTS
IT CONTRADICTS SRT; IF IT DOESN´T EXIST
ALTHOUGH PREDICTED
BY SRT means that predictions of SRT are absent. If it would
exist, it
would mean rotation of REAL bodies (like an electron), not just a
"geometrical"
(i.e. nonphysical) rotation of abstract coordinate systems! It is
assumed
by the "Church of Physics" that the "Thomas precession" were REAL,
CUMMULATIVE
and IRREVERSIBLE, like the assumed asymmetric ageing of twins!
Mass increase
with velocity, however, is a REAL, DYNAMICAL EFFECT, but it
happens WITHIN
ONE SYSTEM, rather than BETWEEN TWO IFR´S.
Be confident and have no fear against the orthodoxy! They are in
(very
deep) trouble, not we. Brain specialist claimed recently to prove
anatomically
that Albert E. was a "born genius"! Yesterday I red a journal
article about
"Einstein´s total solar eclipse": just because the total
solar eclipse
would be observable from Ulm Einstein´s birth place....
Best regards,
il tuo George
Subject: Re: "The
shortest
argument against STR
Date:
Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:21:21 +0200
From:
"George Galeczki" <ncgaleczge@netcologne.de>
To:
"umberto bartocci" <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
My dear truth searchers,
Prof. Umberto Bartocci has challenged me to find the
shortest
irrefutable
argument against the "special" relativity. Here it is:

THE INVARIANT : c^2t^2  x^2 =
c^2t´^2
 x´^2 = INV.
IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH ANY EQUATION OF MOTION: x =
f(t) , ( c^2t^2 f(t)^2 =/= INV. ) with the exception
of x
= ct , therefore INV. = 0 .

There was, anyway, NO INVARIANCE in "special" relativity, ONLY COVARIANCE (Maxwell´s equations, which scramble the electric and magnetic fields, are LorentzCOVARIANT). The homogenous SCALAR wave equation is INVARIANT under Galilei transforma tions while the inhomogeneous VECTOR wave equation is COVARIANT.
Please state in concise form your opinion.
Best regards,
George Galeczki
Subject:
Summingup
Date:
Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:04:08 +0200
From:
"George Galeczki" <ncgaleczge@netcologne.de>
To:
"Umberto Bartocci" <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
Dear Umberto,
I have finally found a "strict and rigorous mathemathical
formulation"
of my best and shortest refutation of SRT.

Let x(µ)^2 = (cT)^2 and dp(µ)/dT =
F(µ)
be the Minkowski INVARIANT and the COVARIANT form of
Newton´s equation
of motion, with x(µ), T and F(µ) staying for position
4vector,
proper time and 4force, respectively. THE SOLUTION xµ
= xµ(T)
OF THE EQUATION OF MOTION CANNOT SATISFY THE MINKOWSKI INVARIANT
SINCE
IT CONTAINS THE NONCOVARIANT INITIAL CONDITIONS, TOO.

1/ My dear Umberto, looking back to the last ten days, I
would
like to express my gratitude for your stimulating, tought
provoking and
sometimes embarassing comments and statements. It doesn´t
matter,
actually, whether you are a convinced critic of SRT, or a believer
in its
logical/mathematical perfection. The end result confirms once more
my positive
experience with BRAIN STORMING, which I practice for years with my
colleague
Peter Marquardt.
2/ Newton´s equation of motion, for velocity
independent
masses and forces depending only on relative distances, is
INVARIANT under
the 3D Galilei transformations (GT): r´ = r +
V.t ;
t´ = t . Although invariance fails, unfortunately, for m(v)
= g(v).v
(g  the gammafactor) and for more general forces, Newton´s
equation
of motion in the form dp/dt = F remains valid! The
failure
of GT means that there is always and everywhere a unique, global,
preferred
inertial reference frame, which can be approached by successive
approximations.
Mass increase with velocity is an absolute effect and can be
derivedindependently
on any kinematical coordinate transformation from: dE =
v.dp = c^2.dm
.
To Franco Selleri: Dear Franco, there cannot be "theories
equivalent
to SRT", since SRT is wrong. There is a profound, physical
difference between
theories with and without a preferred reference frame! Mass
doesn´t
increases due to uniform motion with respect to a fictive,
imaginary IFR.
To Neil Munch: Dear Neil, I hope you will accept that my argument against SRT doesn´t use "shifting assumptions".
To Dennis McCarthy: Dear Dennis, the necessary group
properties
require the invariant velocity "c" to be unique. Physics with a
"medium
dependent kinematics" would be a farce! It may well be that the
velocity
of dislocations in a solid is upper limited by the sound velocity
in that
solid ; so what?? I wrote over five years ago an article in
"Physics Essays"
entitled: "From Einstein to Lorentz and then back to Newton",
discussing
this matter in connection with the ideas of F. Winterberg.
I apologize before all addressants who found themselves,
quite
unexpectedly, witnesses of a tiresome scientific duel. The
formidable,
sometimes embarassing, power of INTERNET made possible to reach a
positive
result in 10 days, which in earlier times could have never happen.
Best
wishes to all of you,
George
JEANJACQUES GRUFFAT
Subject:
relativity
Date:
Wed, 06 Oct 1999 11:22:53 +0200
From:
JeanJacques GRUFFAT <gruffat@emse.fr>
To:
bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it
Dear Umberto Bartocci,
Bernard Guy gave me the mail you sent him and i am very interested with it.
I think that I can produce strong logical arguments
against
relativity.
First you know that the MichelsonMorley's experiment took
a
great
importance in the birth of relativity. Planck himself said that if
this
experiment had not been realised, we should not have the
relativity
theory
at our disposal. I have however shown that in its classical
interpretation,
the conclusion infered from this experiment( length contraction
with
a
ratio (1b2).5 in the movement direction of moving bodies) is not
the
only
one which can explain the MichelsonMorley's experiment: any
lengths
modifications with a ratio k in the normal directions to the
movement
and a ratio k(1b2).5 in the direction of movement would also
agree the
negative result of the Michelson Morley's experiment, whatever he
k value.
Moreover, I have shown that if we assume that a photon is a
corpuscle which is not emitted inside the light source but in
amedium at
rest, the negative result of the MichelsonMorley's experiment is
explained
without any lengths modifications, and ther is no inconsistencies
betwween
a corpuscular nature of light and some over observations. These
results
are to be published in "La Scienza e i vorticci del
dubbio"(Cartesio e
la Scienza").
A second argument can be deduced in considering the
deduction
of
coordinates as done by Lorentz from the LienardWiechert's delayed
potential created by a moving charge q a point A(x, y, z) and at
time
t.
These coordinates transformation are the same as the ones given by
relativity.But these conclusions are as arbitrary as the ones
concerning
the MichelsonMorley's experiment and it is also possible to
deduce
other
coordinates transformations , within the frame of the same
hypothesis.
Any of these coordinates transformation is quite compatible with
one of
the lengths modifications as deduced from the MichelsonMorley'
experiment
in the general case. ihave not published this rzewult, but i
have
a paper about this, an I can send it you.
Moreover the demonstration of the Lorentz's coordinates transformations leads to a surprising result: the potential is assumed to be propagated with a velocity c in the initial cartesian frame, while the Lorentz's coordinates imply that this propagation is instantaneous in this frame. So, why not assume an instantaneous propagation in the initial cartesian frame? The Lorentz's demonstration would be without signification This would infer that the Newton's hypothesis of instantaneous actions are also true in electromagnetism, and that the Maxwell's equations would have to be modified.
A third argument is that I think that the Einstein hypothesis of constancy of light velocity in all galilean frames does not also lead to an only one transformation of coordinates. But I am not still very sure of that.
So I think that we can raise some objections to the foundations of relativity, with a logical point of view.
With my best wishes
JeanJacques Gruffat
SPINRAYONS X
158 cours Fauriel
42023 StEtienne cedex 2
France
BERNARD GUY
Discussion of Relativity Theory
Answer to Umberto BARTOCCI
1) Best mathematical argument against Relativity (mathematical contradiction)
All the presentations of Relativity Theory are not equally mathematically selfconsistent, but one may probably find some that have no mathematical contradiction, although the underlying hypotheses may still be discussed (e.g. LévyLeblond, 1976).
The important problems are found when the velocity of the moving frame is not parallel to the x axis. Thomas rotation does not solve the problem : it is not general and is in contradiction with electromagnetism (Mocanu); generally speaking, the problems of the misfit of relativity with electromagnetism (Bartocci and Capria) appears as a major problem.
In some derivations of the Lorentz transformation (in particular by Einstein), there are contradictions arising from the fact that the coordinates discussed are in the same time that of the photon and that of a general spatiotemporal event (e.g. Baig).
2) Best argument against Relativity from a general point of view (experimental, logical, theoretical or mathematical)
Fundamentally, the hypothesis that in the rest frame, space and time may be considered independently of each other is erroneous. As a consequence, is erroneous the assumption that clocks and rods may be envisaged independently of the physical world, that the size of the clocks may be reduced to zero and that the working of rods may be thought of as instantaneous. Basically, this is a philosophical argument which has consequences on a logical and mathematical point of view and on the simplicity of the link of equations with experience.
The problems set by the threedimensional Lorentz transformation when the velocity of the moving frame is not parallel to one axis are other consequences of the wrong hypothesis of independency of space and time. In addition to leading to extremely complicated and paradoxical relations (non symmetry and non commutativity of the different movements etc.), this again leads to the major problems found in Thomas rotation, link with electromagnetism and so on (see section 1 above).
On the whole, I think that one cannot go back to the prerelativistic situation (with absolute space and time, the aether etc.): the problem of space and time does set. One must define a new formalism, based on a new conception of space and time where these are in a way more linked than in the present formalism (including relativistic one). Therein, the complicated and paradoxical developments of relativity may unravel and some solutions to the problems set by several authors may be found… It is in good part a program of research to which I invite other researchers. In this context part of the relativity formalism may be kept with modifications, and part must be changed to new a formalism (see Guy for a preliminary proposition that must be polished from a mathematical point of view and that must be developped toward electromagnetism).
Bernard GUY, September 1999
Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines
158 Cours Fauriel, 42023 SaintEtienne Cédex 2,
France

33 477 42 01 64, ~ 42 00 66 (secret.), ~ 42 00 00 (fax)
guy@emse.fr (work)
bernardguy@hotmail.com (travel)
100124.603@compuserve.com (home)
JOSEF HASSLBERGER
Subject: Re:
Questionario...
Date: Sun, 1 Aug
1999
00:25:49 0200
From: Josef
Hasslberger
<sepp@lastrega.com>
To: umberto
bartocci
<bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
My dear Bartocci,
thank you for thinking of me and for sending me your survey which you wrote in perfectly understandable  if not perfect  english.
I think that your questions cannot be sensibly answered. Why do I
say
this? You are attempting to beat special relativity in a field
where it
is
unbeatable. That theory has drawn on the best minds developing it
and
ensuring perfect internal mathematical compatibility. Attempting
to
beat
special relativity on this plane is a mistake in methodology, even
though
mathematics is your speciality  or let's say maybe because
mathematics
is
your speciality. Please bear with me although I am not a
mathematician
and not even a recognized scientist, presuming to tell you what
method
to adopt.
If you want to bring down special (or general) relativity you
should
not
look for internal contradictions. You must search for external
contradictions, incompatibilities with phisical reality and with
logics.
I
know that they have already taken this into account and have in
some
way
made us believe that the theory cannot be logically understood.
But
that,
if we want to use a good english term, is bull shit.
There is nothing in this universe which may not be understood by
a person
which a reasonably sharp mind and a minimum of preparation. All
those
arguments about the arcane nature of the theory have been put up
only
in
order to prevent it's being taken apart by logical arguments.
The internal logical contradictions you are searching for, maybe
are
not
even there, but that is not important. The crux lays much deeper.
There
simply is no logical basis!
If a theory is not accessible to intuitive and logical
argumentation,
it is
not worth to even take into consideration. You could also not
agree
with me on this point, because your professional life is that of a
mathematician.
You can use mathematics to try and "disprove" special relativity
but
I
would think that a better approach would be that of taking just
those
parts
of special relativity that are counterintuitive and to say: "Stop,
one
cannot reason like this".
Unfortunately such a point of view does not seem to be "in" these days. But nevertheless, the only way I see in which the impasse created by relativity may be overcome is to affirm the principle that everything must be understandable. If it is not, it is not acceptable.
I know you didn't like my latest article so much (Action at a
Distance

http://www.hasslberger.com) because not based firmly on facts, but
tell me: what are the facts that this famous relativity is based
on? At
least what I affirm is not against all possibility of logical
immagination,
as is
relativity.
To make it short, in order to overcome relativity, I think one
must
return
to the basic condition of intuibility of models. Nothing in this
universe,
I believe, is outside of this parameter, regardless of what the
adherents
of relativity might say.
Excuse my venting my thoughts in a rather nonscientific way
 yours
Josef H.
AL KELLY
Subject: Re: Try
this
to read my comments
Date:
Wed, 13 Oct 99 00:49:58 0000
From:
Al Kelly <agkelly@eircom.net>
To:
"umberto bartocci" <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
Hi Umberto,
Heree are my comments in text and you can certaiinly read this.
Will
this suit your requirements?
Regards,
Al Kelly
Comments on Prof. Umberto Bartocci’s Paper on S.R.
I have read your paper with great interest. I comment as follows:
1. I agree that, until now, there has not been a fair balanced
debate
concerning the veracity or falsity of Special Relativity. All we
get are
two armies lined up against each other. There is no genuine debate
and
exchange of ideas. The debate is somewhat like that of a pair of
drunks,
who do not listen to each other. Any riposte is good enough, just
to counter
the point of the other side. I compliment you on the first attempt
at a
proper debate.
My comments will probably be different from other commentators,
because
I am an engineer, and will concentrate on the 'practical' problems
with
relativity theory, rather than debate the bottomless morass of the
'theory'.
I shall mention items that are never (or very rarely ever)
mentioned by
adherents of S.R. theory. This is a great irritant to those who
question
that Theory. With your idea, both sides of the argument should be
fairly
stated. That would be a welcome innovation.
2 It is rarely mentioned that Einstein, in his very first
1905
paper (in Annalen der Physik Vol 17, on pages 904 & 905), said
that
straight line motion was not solely used, but motion in a
polygonal shape,
and also in a circuit. Many authors claim that one cannot mention
S.R.
in relation to motion in a circuit. They pontificate that Œonly
straight
line uniform motion¹ can be discussed. They demand that no
circular
motion is allowed. You cover this important point, but why not
quote Einstein
on that? Here is what Einstein wrote (Annalen Der Physik 1905, Vol
17,
pages 9045) : ²From this there ensues the following peculiar
consequence.
If at points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which,
viewed in
the stationary system are synchronous; and if the clock at A is
moved with
the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B
the two
clocks no longer synchronise, but the clock moved from A to B lags
behind
the other which has remained at B by 1/2 tv*2/c*2 (up to
magnitudes of
fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey
from
A to B. It is at once apparent that this result holds good if the
clock
moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points
A and
B coincide. If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal
line is
also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this
result: If
one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with
constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds,
then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its
arrival
at A will be 1/2 tv*2/c*2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a
balanceclock
at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a
precisely
similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise
identical conditions².
You have a good view on all that, but it would be worth while
spelling
out exactly what Einstein said, and its implications.
3. Consider further what Einstein said in his first 1905 paper. Discussing firstly the dimensions of an object, which was moving in the direction of the x axis, he said that ²the X dimension appears shortened² by the factor gamma and continued ³the greater the value of gamma the greater the shortening². Having thus examined the appearance of moving objects, as observed by an observer at rest, Einstein continues:³ It is clear that the same results hold good of bodies at rest in the 'stationary¹ system, viewed from a system in uniform motion². The reciprocal effect is recorded here by Einstein. So far, so good. Of course, this raises the question as to how the dimensions of both objects could be relatively shortened at the same time, just because the two objects were in relative motion. We shall leave this for the moment, and discuss the other aspect of the problem, which has raised major controversy over the past 90 years. Einstein goes on to discuss time and he concludes that a travelling clock is perceived to run slow viz: t = gamma t¹. Strangely, he does not, at this juncture, refer to the reverse situation, even though he had earlier done so on the same page in the English edition (previous page 903 in the original German) when he discussed dimensions. Why is this fact never mentioned? What was left unsaid was that, to an observer travelling with the moving clock, the 'stationary¹ clock would also appear to run slow. Instead, he had laid the foundations for the subsequent twin controversy. Nobody ever mentions that Einstein later actually wrote that the time slowing was vice versa (he did not this in the 1905 paper, even though he applied the reverse situation to 'distance'). In his 1922 book ³The Meaning of Relativity² he specifically says it; 'mutatis mutandi' is the expression he used, and you being Italian will understand that! This was written after he had launched General Relativity. It is interesting that very few texts refer to Einstein¹s 1905 statement, and none to his 1922 statement, when discussing the twin paradox. Invariably, the discussion centres around accelerations and decelerations, cylindrical Universes, jumping Inertial Frames, or steady motion all along one straight line path. Several authors discuss this reverse situation (that Einstein omitted to mention in his 1905 paper); Why did Einstein not say in 1905 that according to the travelled clock, the stationary clock would have gone slow by the same amount? Indeed, Einstein¹s own discussion on dimensions covered the reverse situation for dimensions, but he did not do this not for time and clocks. Why? Here is where, in his later book "The Meaning of Relativity" (Chapman & Hall, London,1922, p. 35), Einstein did record the reverse situation, for both dimensions and time, (referring to a stationary system K, and a moving one K¹): the clock goes slower than if it were at rest relatively to K¹. These two consequences, which hold, mutatis mutandi, for every system of reference, form the physical content, free from convention, of the Lorentz transformation. In the intervening 77 years, I did not find a single reference to this clear statement that the effect is vice versa. It was not mentioned in the famous debate between Dingle and Irishman McCrea; the latter is still alive (I think, at about 93 years of age). Nobody dug up that pertinent fact.
4. I do not agree with your implication that McCrea answered Dingle satisfactorily. I never met anyone, who had read Dingle¹s book and was satisfied with McCrea's response!! This is simply because nobody would publish Dingle's reply to McCrea. Because Dingle was prevented from making a further response, many people thought that McCrea had won the debate! Dingle had to publish a book to get his say. You have read the book "Science at the Crossroads" by Dingle (Martin Bryan & O'Keeffe, London; 1972) where he answered McCrea (because no journal would print his response to McCrea, we can then hardly give McCrea the victory?). I also challenge you to give a fair run to Dingle and his book. He was the author of "Relativity for All" (Methuen, 1922), and of "The Special Theory of Relativity" (Menthuen, 1940) which was a standard textbook in English and American Universities in 4 editions well into the 1970's; that is for over 30 years. He was no small fry, no outsider, and had discussed the whole theory in detail with Einstein and all the other famous physicists of the time. Tolman actually names an equation after Dingle in his book "Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology". In 1959, however, like St Paul on the road to Damascus, Dingle realised that there was a snag. What is it, he asked, in Einstein's theory, that determines which of 2 clocks, relatively moving uniformly, lags behind the other? Over a period of 13 years he sought a straight answer to this simple query in vain. McCrea gave an astonishing final reply. He said that Einstein had never compared the rates of two relatively moving clocks. "If we thus say that, according to relativity theory, a moving clock appears to go slow, then we are not making a symmetric comparison of one single clock with another single clock". But, that is precisely what Einstein did in his first relativity 1905 paper and his 1922 book; the latter referred to 'mutatis mutandi" for this situation. McCrea was clearly trying to wriggle out of the problem, by changing what Einstein said. How many people will swallow that excuse? Dingle penned the Encyclopaedia Britannica statements on Relativity; he was that renowned. Reading many papers, you would think that he was an isolated crank. In my opinion, anyone who has not read and studied Dingle's book is not qualified to pontificate on this subject.
5. Even more of an embarrassment is the completely
incorrect and
bizarre bluff of Einstein in Naturwissenschaften (6th year, Heft
48, page
697712, 1918) concerning the Twin Paradox. I challenge you to
quote this
nonsense and debunk it! Einstein was challenged concerning the
onesided
aging of the twins, who are in relative motion. He postulated, in
an article
in Naturwissenschaften, that the speeding up of a moving clock in
the deceleration/acceleration
phase was exactly twice the slowing down that is occasioned in the
steadyspeed
state. This is quoted in translation in Dingle¹s book (p.
194). In
a supposed discussion between a skeptic and a relativist, the
skeptic raises
the paradox of the two clocks (U1 and U2), each supposed to be
running
slower than the other. The supposed 'proof¹ of onesided
aging has
been buried in the archives. It is surely another huge
embarrassment to
adherents of Relativity Theory. I have never seen it even
partially quoted
in the past 20 years, since Dingle quoted it (pages 192201 of his
book
³Science at the Crossroads", nor in the previous 50 years.
Why, oh
why? Einstein actually pretends that the whole paradox is
explained by
the following statement (referring to the acceleration and
deceleration
phase as causing 'advancement' or lessening of age):
"Calculation shows that the consequent advancement amounts to
exactly
twice as much as the retardation during stages 2 and 4. This
completely
clears up the paradox which you have propounded." (page 669
Columns 1 &
2 of Natürwissenschaften).
Phases 2 and 4 are the steady uniform motion phases going out and
then
back. I love the phrase ‘calculation shows’. What calculation? Be
wary
of any such evasive statement. Young’s "University Physics" on the
Twin
Paradox says "Careful analysis shows", but carefully avoids saying
how
this is done!
Let us consider this question. On the journey of a twin, who goes
off,
and then turns around and comes back again, the acceleration phase
can
be of any duration and magnitude, and the deceleration phase can
be likewise;
also the return journey could have entirely different acceleration
and
deceleration from the outward journey. So, we cannot say that the
magnitude
of any effect would exactly balance out the slowing that is
supposed to
happen during the (arbitrarily chosen) steadystate phase. As an
example,
we could have the steady state phases going out and back each of
duration
1000 years, while the deceleration/acceleration, which reverses
the motion,
could take 1/100 second. How could the slowing that took place
over 2000
years be magically exactly balanced by a quickening that takes
place in
our arbitrarily chosen 1/100 second! An alternative example could
have
the steady state outandback taking 1/100 second, and the
acceleration
and deceleration part taking 1000 years. Also, the outward
acceleration
and deceleration could be 10,000 times greater (or less) than
those on
the return journey!
It is arrant nonsense to suggest that the two always balance
exactly,
no matter what the duration of the steady state phase, or the
acceleration
phases. What a blatant crooked swindle! But, this must be quoted
when debating
this paradox. Why pretend that Einstein did not say that? I dare
any proponent
of S.R to mention this statement by Einstein. He was challenged to
explain
the paradox, and this was his considered published reply (after a
7 year
delay from when it was mentioned by Langevin). He occluded the
supposed
balancing of the steady state, and the acceleration &
deceleration
phases, with convoluted applications of imaginary gravitational
fields
acting upon the twins!
You imply that a correct 'explanation' is in almost all relativity
textbooks. I have, so far, collected 54 different socalled
'explanations'
(up to Summer 1999), published in mainstream physics
journals (all
suitably peer reviewed!) and textbooks, and each implies that most
of the
others are wrong!!! These socalled explanations are broken down
as follows:
8 say it is inexplicable, and causes a huge problem for Relativity
(among
these is Essen the inventor of the cesium clock); 4 say the
differential
aging is all caused solely during the acceleration &
deceleration phases
(this includes Langevin, Bondi, Rindler and a standard 1990's
textbook);
9 say the acceleration has nothing whatever to do with the
explanation;
3 say that General Relativity has nothing to do with the
explanation; 4
say that General Relativity gives the sole explanation; 2 say
jumping from
one Inertial Frame to another explains the paradox. Other more
exotic and
bizarre explanations make up the rest. So, it as all very simple,
and the
correct explanation is to be seen in every standard text? Like
hell it
is!
Møller's widely used text "The Theory of Relativity" had to
admit that its original explanation was not correct. In later
editions
it concocts a mass that suddenly goes from + to  for a twin! That
must
be an interesting experience! ŒBizarre¹ is the word for
that.
Umberto Bartocci has yet another explanation (if this has been
published,
it can be counted as number 55) viz: that the path of one of the
clocks
is 'geodesic, the other definitively not". He claims that "the
'postulate
of relativity' either special or general, never asserts that
supposed complete
symmetry between the two clocks". I claim that Einstein said just
that
in his 1922 book (see above). Also, in relation to this paradox
why not
also quote another simple objection; if the twins never met again,
and
just start by passing each other at high speed and exchange
photographs,
and after 30 years of each others own recorded 'time' take another
photograph
and post that to the other twin?. This is the simple setup that
is very
carefully avoided in the debate. Or what of the "Peter would be
dead and
Paul alive on the one hand, while Paul would be dead and Peter
alive on
the other hand" problem set by Lovejoy in 1931. We have Peter both
dead
and alive, and also Paul both dead and alive! Why, oh why, do so
many adherents
of S.R. adopt a lofty condescending attitude on this problem, as
if everyone
else was stupid, and ‘dead from the neck up’?
6. In relation to the Sagnac experiment, we do not need to
talk
about infinities. Just make the disc big (the Michelson & Gale
disc
is 16,000,000 m in diameter, and that is fairly big). When the
disc is
of a size where the best measuring instruments will not show any
difference
from a straight line direction, then, at such a low speed (about
13 m/s
rim speed on a typical Sagnac small disc test) how can S.R explain
such
a huge effect (which is 10,000,000 times the S.R. forecast
effect). It
is just not good enough to say that S.R. does not apply, because
Sagnac
is circular motion, and try to leave the matter there, as if that
were
sufficient explanation; we must explain the matter!! See the
earlier discussion
above on Einstein's statement that S.R. applies to motion in a
circuit,
exactly as in the Sagnac test. If we all think that the Sagnac
effect is
simply explained, then why the 21 different attempted explanations
given
in Hasselbach & Nicklaus? Reading them is amusing. And, it is
all supposed
to be very clear, and simple. It sure is not! To give a balanced
debate
this view must be aired. Listen to Hasselbach & Nicklaus
(1993):
"Various authors have derived the Sagnac phase shift in a number
of
ways: by optical analogy, general relativity considerations,
special relativity
analyses, the Doppler effect on moving media in an inertial frame,
a classical
kinematic derivation, a dynamical analysis in a noninertial frame,
by analogy
with the AharonovBohm effect, by extension of the hypothesis of
locality,
by adiabatic invariance, using other concepts, and in other ways".
Look here, there is a problem for S.R in the Sagnac effect. There
is
no
point is clouding the issue with big words or equations! Why not
state
the glaringly simple derivation using classical ideas? I challenge
you
to state this (say the opposite if you wish to give your balanced
debate).
This is covered in Monographs 1 and 2 of the Inst. Engrs Ireland
(see references).The
light moves relative to the laboratory in a tabletop Sagnac test.
To the
observer aboard the disc the light goes at speeds of c±v in
the
opposing directions. R Monti derived the same ideas independently
in his
Phys. Essays article, at about the same time.
The GPS synchronisation system uses the Sagnac correction every
day.
But, it pretends that this is a 'relativistic' correction. It is
nothing
of the sort. The President of the Bureau International des Poids
et Mesures
in Paris (which sets the rules for these synchronisation)
wrote to
me and said "You are right in stating that the Sagnac effect
is not
relativistic"!!! I can send you a copy of the letter if you wish.
This
is despite the fact thast their official documentation defines it
as 'relativistic'!!
That sure is some huge admission. See Monograph No 4 of the Inst
of Engs
of Ireland 1998 "Rules for EinsteinSynchronisation of Clocks
Challenged".
This scheme is one big pretence. There is no relative motion
between two
clock stations that are sending signals to synchronise with each
other;
how then can we use the word 'relativistic' to the fact that
the
signal goes at a different speed East and West around the globe??
The 'swindle'
is to pretend that the speed of light aboard the spinning Earth is
c. They
have no compunction in applying their 'relativistic' analysis to
the spinning
Earth (despite the fact that others say you cannot use it in those
circumstances).
Having pretended that the speed is c, they then alter the
time aboard
the Earth by exactly the Sagnac amount. This is just as altering
the time
in the famous 'rodclock' thought experiment in every basic
physics text
on relativity (by gamma). If you claim that the speed of
light must
be 'c' aboard the moving object, then you must get the time
altered by
precisely the amount needed to correct the difference in the speed
of light
from the figure 'c'. Is that clear? I am in corresondence with
those authorities
on that at the moment. The usual verbal response that "well, S.R.
fits
so many things that you would have to disprove all those, before I
will
listen to you". You see, to any sensible reader of all this
debate, there
is never a fair quoting of the contra arguments. It is like the
defence
of a 'religion' with 'mysteries' that we cannot understand!!
7. My paper on Hafele & Keating (Monograph No 3 of the
Inst.
Engs Ireland) shows that those tests meant nothing. However, and
ironically,
clocks that are sent off at speed actually slow down, in
proportion to
their absolute speed with reference to outer space, that travels
with the
Earth.
No reference to the evidence in favour of this is ever given. It
is
in Monograph No 4of the inst Engrs Ireland.
8. Some further comments:
"All the other fellows do not look from the facts to the theory,
but
from the theory to the facts; they cannot extricate themselves
from a once
accepted conceptual net, but only flop around in it in a grotesque
way"

Einstein writing to Schrödinger in 1935. Let us give
precedence
to the facts of the tests mentioned above.
Would you dare to mention any of the detailed arguments demolishing S.R. from the 1000 page book ³Electromagnetics² by Irishman A O¹Rahilly (1938) ?
The philosopher Sir Karl Popper in ³The Logic of Scientific Discovery² said that one test can demolish a beautiful theory, but no number of tests can ever prove a theory.
Here is why the adherents of S.R. stick to their guns:
"The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical
completeness.
If a single one of the conclusions is proven wrong, it must be
given up;
to modify it without destroying the whole structure appears to be
impossible."
A. Einstein.
References
Dingle H Science at the Crossroads (Martin Brian & O'Keeffe,
London)
1972
Einstein A Natürwissenschaften 6th Year Heft 48 697702
Kelly A.G. Monographs No's 1 (1995) to 6 (1998); copies free from
the
Institution of Engineers, 22 Clyde Rod, DUBLIN 4. Ireland.
Einstein A. Ann der Physik Vol 17, 891921, 1905
Einstein A. The Principle of Relativity (Dover, London) 1952
Einstein A. The Meaning of Relativity (Chapman & Hall Methuen,
London) 1922
Langevin P. Scientia 3154, 1911
Monti R. Phys. Ess. 9, No 2, 23860, 1996
O¹Rahilly A. Electromagnetics (Long man Green; London) 1938
Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Hutcihinson; London)
1972.
Tolman R. C. Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology (Oxford Unit,
Pry.) 1934
Miller C. The Theory of Relativity (Clarendon Pry. Oxford) 1952
Young H. University Physics (Addison Wesley, Reading Mass.)
1992

Well, Umberto, all the above might be useful to you together with
all
the other submissions that you will receive to your stimulating
circular.
That was a great idea, and congratulations on doing that. I
apologise if
the tone of this note is somewhat heated in certain places. It is
so, because
I am Irish, and we have a rather excitable Latin nature!! It is
angry,
not with you, but with the unsatisfactory position in physics
today; you
gave me the opportunity to let off some steam!
Sincerely,
Al Kelly
DEL LARSON
Subject: Some
thoughts
Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:21:52 EDT
From:
Delbert7@aol.com
To:
ncgaleczge@netcologne.de, bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it
All,
The recent voluminous emailings concerning the best argument against special relativity (SR) have clearly indicated a problem in our common attempts to come up with something better. If we try to come up with theoretical arguments to show how special relativity is wrong, we will lose. SR has been studied and celebrated for generations now. If there was a theoretical flaw it would have been found long ago. The generations past were very intellegent, as are many in today's physics establishment.
Several points have been raised which I wish to comment on:

Point 1. The problem with George's challenge to SRT.
Special relativity is certainly correct  in the mathematical
sense.
Special relativity is, in essense, a theory about point like
events in
a four space.
With the Lorentz transformations it is straight forward to show
how
any two separated events obey a condition where:
s^2 = dx*dx + dy*dy + dz*dz  cdt*cdt
is an invariant quantity, such that when the Lorentz transformation is applied, and one goes to a primed coordiate system, one gets:
s'^2 = dx'*dx' + dy'*dy' + dz'*dz'  cdt'*cdt' = s^2. (1)
In the above expressions, dx (dy, dz) is the spatial separation
of the
two events in the x (y, z) direction, and dt is the temporal
separation
of the two events. The unprimed coordinates are evaluated in
one
inertial frame, while the primed coordinates are evaluated in a
second
inertial frame moving at speed v with respect to the first.
Since it can be straight forwardly shown that the above equation
(1)
follows for finite differentials, we can see that for any
instantaneous
snapshot of any arbitrary motion the invariant holds. Thus,
there
is no problem with special relativity handling an arbitrary motion
x =
f(t), as we can analyze it in terms of individual events (values
of x and
t) and apply the Lorentz transformation to analyse it from any
other frame,
and we are guaranteed that the invariant stays invariant. This
method of
attempting to disprove SR only serves to indicate to the
establishment
that we don't know what we're talking about.
I think the root of the problem is in what one means by
"invariant".
The confusion arises because of the fact that light behaves
uniquely within
the special theory. For light we have: x = ct, and therefore
x^2
 c^2t^2 = 0. And when the transformation is made we also
have x'
= ct', or x'^2  c^2t'^2 = 0. This can lead to the confusion
that
the invariance of the four vector is related to motion of a
photon, since
for the motion of the photon the quantity x^2  c^2t^2 = 0 is
invariant
between reference frames. Once this confusion is made, one may try
to evaluate
this "invariant" for particles moving at speeds less than c and
one does
indeed find that it is not an invariant quantity. If we have
x =
vt for a baseball moving in drag free space, we will not get an
invariant
if we form the quantity x^2  c^2t^2 at different times. The
problem
here is that we are no longer concerning ourselves with two
separated events
in four space, and comparing their four vector separations in two
different
reference frames. Instead we are looking at separate event
separations
and comparing them. As a concrete example, consider our baseball
at a position
x = 1 mile, t = 1 hour. What we mean by this event is
actually the
separation of two events, with the second event being the origin
at x =
0, t = 0. If we evaluate the quantity x^2  c^2t^2 we will
get some
s^2, and if we use the Lorentz transformation and evaluate x'^2 
c^2t'^2
from the other frame we will again get s^2. That's the
invariant
quantity. But if we now consider the case where x = 10
miles, t =
10 hours, we get a new (not invariant) value for s^2! But
the point
is that this new value of s^2 will be the same in the second
frame.
It's invariant from frame to frame, it's not invariant from event
to event.
That's what special relativity is all about. Relativity does
not
stipulate that the four vector for the two different cases must be
the
same. Of course not. It would be identical to saying
that a
meter stick and a yard stick must have the same length.
(There we
also have two events for each case. Case one has events at x = 0,
t = 0
and x = 1 meter, t = 0. Case two has events at x = 0, t = 0
and x
= 1 yard, t = 0. Here the invariant quantites are 1 meter in
the
first case and 1 yard in the second. And a meter doesn't
equal a
yard, much to the dismay of much of the US population!). Again the
point
of confusion I see in George's work stems from the fact that if
light is
used, one does get an invariant of 0 for its entire spectrum (pun
intended)
of positions and times throughout its motion. But that is
not what
is meant by four vector invariance.

Point 2. Sherwin's Experiment.
I agree with Tom concerning the problem that Sherwin's result poses for Lorentz. In discussing this matter with Ron at the most recent NPA meeting, Ron made the point that he feels that the atoms in Sherwin's rotating apparatus can adjust to their equilibrium position at speeds faster than the speed of sound. Once Ron allows this to happen one can indeed get a null result from within the Lorentzian theory. But my point of view is more in line with Sherwin's. Why should the adjustment of position within the moving springs occur faster than the speed of sound? The adjustments of positions always occur at the speed of sound in every other experiment. For this reason I think we must doubt length contraction in the Lorentzian sense.
Fortunately it is possible to modify the Lorentz theory to have time dilation alone, without a length contraction. If one does so, the only experiment that can't be readily handled is that of Michelson Morley, and similar such tests. I have proposed (Physics Essays, vol.7, no.4, 1994) that the Michelson Morley null result occurs as a result of the fact that the mirrors enforce null conditions on the etherial oscillations, and when you move the null condition you enforce the null result.

Point 3. Gamma*m*v.
There was again some discussion about whether we should consider mass to increase in the momentum expression, or if the velocity should be allowed to go to greater than c. As for me, rather than forcing nature to have two terms in the momentum, mass and velocity, and arguing about which must change from the classical form, I believe we should have three terms, gamma, m, and v each contributing. Clearly gamma is a function of v, so really what I am arguing for is simply a more complicated form for the momentum than p = mv. I don't see why we waste all this time debating what's going on. p = gamma*m*v. That's all. m is m. v is v. And gamma is gamma. It's just that p doesn't equal mv. Why must we insist that it does?

Point 4. The needed experimental test.
Not mentioned in the voluminous exchange is the one set of experiments which clearly show that relativity is wrong. Recently these tests have come under the name of "quantum teleportation", but earlier they were known as tests of Bell's theorem. In those experiments quantum phenomena clearly lead to results of experiments where two spatially separated detectors affect the results in a way violating causality if relativity is correct. If a modified Lorentzian theory is deemed correct, causality can be maintained. Some orthodox physicists recognize this problem. This set of experiments is, without doubt in my opinion, the Achilles heel of special relativity.
My fellow scholars, I submit to you that it is this set of experiments that will lead to the downfall of the special theory. The relevant references are:
Theory  J.S. Bell, Physics (NY) 1, 195, 1965. Note that
this
journal is
very hard to find. Fortunately the paper can be found within
Bell's
delightful and easily obtainable book "Speakable and unspeakable
in
quantum mechanics" which is readily available in many fine
bookstores.
Experiment  A. Aspect, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 49, 1804 (1982).
Really folks  experimental proof that special relativity is
wrong!
And the
experiment blessed even by the most orthodox journal in all of
physics.
This is the path to overthrowing relativity.
With best regards to all,
Del Larson
Subject: Re: Some
thoughts
Date:
Mon, 25 Oct 1999 09:54:47 +0200 (MET DST)
From:
Franco Selleri <Franco.Selleri@ba.infn.it>
To:
Delbert7@aol.com
Dear Del Larson,
I am sorry not to know
you,
but one thing I know, that
your argument concerning the EPR paradox is not correct. No
experiment performed on the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen
correlations has ever produced any evidence against either
local realism or the Lorentz interpretation of Special
Relativity. Bell's inequality has never been checked
experimentally.
Are you shocked? If you
are it is only because
you never paid any attention to the so called loopholes.
Additional assumptions have been made, starting with the
1969 CHSH paper in PRL, and inequalities different from
and stronger than the original Bell inequality have been
obtained. Also here, as it happens often nowadays, the
orthodox people play a dirty game: they try to make people
forget about the additional assumptions. I can see that
with you they succeeded, Del Larson. In the case of the
Orsay experiments (Aspect et al.) the interval within
which the linear combination of correlation functions
must lie has length 1 according to the weak inequality
(deduced from local realism alone), but length less than 0.03
for the strong inequality (deduced with the essential
help of untestable additional assumptions). Experimentally
the STRONG inequality was found to be violated, but the weak
one is on safe ground by a wide margin.
The whole story is told
in detail in a book which
I recently coauthored with Alexander Afriat: THE EINSTEIN,
PODOLSKY AND ROSEN PARADOX IN ATOMIC, NUCLEAR, AND PARTICLE
PHYSICS,
Plenum, New York/London (1998).
Best regards to all of
you,
Franco
Selleri
Subject:
Minkowski,
Sherwin, EPR & more tests
Date:
Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:12:11 EST
From:
Delbert7@aol.com
To: bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it,
selleri@bari.infn.it,
...
To all,
I have again several comments on the ongoing discussions.
George,
It is clear to me that the problem in your argument is purely
conceptual.
You are in essense showing that a series of events, all evaluated
within
the same frame, do not satisfy the Minkowski invariant. The
problem
is that the Minkowski invariant is a quantity that is invariant
between
pairs of events each analyzed in different frames, not a series of
events
within the same frame.
That is, if I am understanding your arguments, you are comparing
x^2
 c^2t^2 at different times within a single frame, while the
Minkowski
invariant is meant to compare the quantities x^2  c^2t^2 and x'^2
 c^2t'^2
at a single time, but in two different frames. For the
latter case,
the Lorentz transformation does indeed lead to an invariant
quantity after
the comparison. For the former case you are indeed correct
that it
is not invariant. But you are incorrect in saying that
special relativity
says that the former case should be invariant. Special
relativity
says no such thing.
I also note in your writings that you state that the relative
velocity
between two frames S and S' is not reciprocal. This
statement
is also
incorrect. I have worked this out in detail, and have no
doubt
that the
velocity is reciprocal. Once length contraction, time
dilation,
and the
simultaneity alterations are made, observers agree that their
velocities
are
reciprocal.
Tom,
Re Sherwin:
The discussion I had with Ron regarding Sherwin's experiment ended by my pointing out that if one does a Lorentzian analysis of the experiment one does indeed get what Ron says. Specifically:
Special relativity predicts no observable effect  the weight goes around in a circle. Special relativity goes on to say that if you go to a moving frame, the weight will now go around in an ellipse. Special relativity shows that there are mass increases, length contractions, and time dilations that go along with the transfer to that frame, but that all is in equilibrium. As is well known, a Lorentzian analysis including all of these factors gives the same result as special relativity. At the conference Ron and I agreed on all of this. But my point to him was that in order to get the elliptical motion, the length contraction of the spring must occur in a way faster than the speed of sound. At the speed of light perhaps. Then the equilibrium is there for the elliptical motion, including all of the mass increase, time dilation and length contraction effects. But if the length contraction occurs at the speed of sound, then one should expect a nonnull result.
I beleive that Sherwin was well aware of all of this, and that
the central
point of his argument was that the length change should not occur
faster
than the speed of sound. In fact he emphasized that point in
his
paper. In the end, Ron is right that if the length change is
not
limited by the speed of sound, that Lorentz predicts no
effect. But
I side with Sherwin's original analysis. If Lorentz was
right, there
should have been an effect for Sherwin to see. Unless the
sun or
earth is at rest with respect to the ether, which would be a real
coincidence.
Re Length contraction:
I'd be interested to see how a theory without a length contraction can handle Michelson Morley without doing something about the velocity of light between the mirrors. The original experiment was of course designed based on the assumption of no length contraction, and it quite clearly (and simply) leads to a prediction of an effect. If you have light speed c in a preferred frame, and no length contraction, I don't see how you can explain Michelson and Morley.
Re Establishment:
You are correct that much of the establishment has brushed off
the EPR
tests by saying that no information is transmitted, so there is no
problem.
But a persistent minority of the establishment realizes that there
is indeed
a profound problem. Indeed, it was Einstein himself (along
with Podolski
and Rosen) who brought this matter out in the first place.
Further,
whenever I have discussions with establishment physicists about
this they
usually mindlessly state what you say, but after minimal
discussion with
me they come to understand that this is not so easy to
dismiss. Usually
it ends with them saying "I'm not that smart", that is, they give
up.
I have found almost all establishment physicists to be quite
intellegent,
honest, and hardworking.
The problem is that this stuff is rather weird to think about and
they
just
grab the first handy argument they can find to stop discussing
this
entire
matter with us "loonies". And I can see why.
Generally,
in the discussions of what is wrong with relativity, the special
relativity
opponent simply misses the point. And it takes a long time,
generally,
to find out why the opponent is wrong. But after days of
thought
one generally (90% or more) finds that the opponent is
wrong. It
takes that long because the opponent is generally quite
intelligent too,
and has worked on this for quite some time.
Take the case we are arguing with George here. (Who is doing
quite complex, intelligent things.) It is the confusion of the
concepts
that leads to this entire discussion, and it is going on for quite
some
time. So instead of all that effort, the establishment just
grabs
the first handy argument and dismisses the opponent. But in
the case
of EPR, most establishment physicists do agree there is something
strange
going on they don't understand. I still view this as the
Achilles
heal of the intellectual giant that is the Special Theory.
We should
all whack away at that heal!
Franco,
I am puzzled in many ways by your response. First, I would
not
at all be surprized if "the Lorentz interpretation of Special
Relativity"
was not
harmed by the EPR tests of Aspect et al., indeed in some sense
that
is my point! But of course your phrase "the Lorentz
interpretation
of Special Relativity" is itself highly objectionable to me, since
Lorentz
did his work before Einstein, and Lorentz never interpretted
special relativity
in any way. Rather, it is the Lorentz theory which special
relativity
reinterpretted. But if we must bow to the prevailing winds
of giving
Einstein credit for every physical science advance, then the
Lorentz theory
might be called "the Lorentz interpretation of Special
Relativity".
I believe that the EPR tests do indeed support the Lorentz theory
over
that of Einstein, so perhaps your response to me is merely to
agree with
that point.
A second reason why I am puzzled is that I am unfamiliar with the strong and weak Bell's inequalities, and I have never learned anything about them. I have been studying Bell's original paper on the matter, and from what I understand so far it seems quite clear and to the point. When I was a professor at UCLA I attended Bell's talk for the Schwinger symposium, and Bell never got into any "strong" and "weak" conditions. Rather, with the experiments only recently completed, he was quite clear that the experiments did indeed call into question relativity. He consistently made the point that the Lorentz theory was perfectly in step with the EPR tests, but the special relativity was not. Do you differ with such a statement? If so, how?
A third reason for my puzzlement is that by mentioning things in terms of only "strong" and "weak" I have no idea what you are referring to. If it is possible, could you please sketch some of the "assumptions" that Bell does or does not make? Again, his 6 page work seems quite clear and to the point to me. Why would one require an entire book to cover this topic, when the EPR and Bell papers are so short? Could you send quick, tothepoint arguments why they are wrong?
Clarence,
The EPR paper set up an experiment wherein, if relativity is correct, certain quantum mechanical experiments would lead to results showing that quantum mechanics is wrong. Essentially, relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible. For this reason, the EPR tests show whether it is quantum mechanics or special relativity that is correct. When the tests were done, it was quantum mechanics that prevailed. Hence, this set of experiments shows that relativity is wrong. For this reason it is highly relevant in any discussion of relativity to discuss EPR experiments.
This is unless one wants to set aside all experiments and make
things
a
strictly theoretical discussion. But, I support Umberto's
position
that,
from a mathematical (and therefore theoretical) sense, special
relativity
is completely consistent and correct. Arguing that point
merely shows
a
misunderstanding of the theory.
Only in the experimental realm can we hope to overthrow special
relativity.
And the EPR experiments are a set of experiments where relativity
is
especially vulnerable.
All,
In the past I have proposed two additional experimental tests of the special theory, beyond the EPR tests:
1) An amplitude equivalent of the Michelson Morley test.
In one of my previous positions I worked at the Center for
Research
in
Electro Optics and Lasers in Orlando Florida. There they
have
experts in making femto second lasers. These ultrashort
pulses of
light could be put through a Michelson Morley like apparatus and
recombined.
If sent through a nonlinear doubling crystal, a very fine
determination
can be made whether there is a differential velocity as the earth
rotates
during the day.
Despite the rather obvious benefits of doing this experiment (for
about
$50,000) the NSF rejected it (I earned two F's and a D as I recall
 only 3
A's get funded), since I was audacious enough to say that one
might
get a nonnull result. (The reviewers asked why money should
be wasted
on this when relativity is so well proven already.) In
hindsight
I should have pitched the thing as showing further support for
Einstein's
remarkable theory. I'm guessing the reviews would have been
much
better.
2) Searching for a length contraction using rail guns.
As I understand it, rail guns are capable of making projectiles reach quite high velocities. If one could shoot an ultra short laser pulse across the rapidly moving particle, it may be possible to get a very accurate length of the moving object from its shadow. I've never run the numbers, but in principle one could look for a real measurement of length contraction in this way. To be certain, one should also decelerate the projectile after the experiment to be sure that a physical deformation had not occurred. I never followed up on this experiment with a proposal, since it appeared to me that achieving a high enough velocity to get a noticable length contraction would be very hard. I imagine that decelerating the object would be even more difficult. That, and test 1 above is clearly doable.
Note that test 1 may still leave a null result even if there is
an ether
with
no length contraction. Since the mirrors enforce a condition
where phase velocity tests (traditional Michelson Morley tests)
give a
null result, and do so for all frequencies, the group velocity
must also
be c with respect to the mirrors. For that reason, test 1
only tests
to see of there is a different envelope velocity than that of the
underlying
carrier wave. It is possible, and should be tested.
But the
point is that test 1 can experimentally show relativity is wrong
if an
nonnull result is obtained, it just can't say too much new if the
test
comes back with a null result.
With sincere and best regards to all,
Del Larson
ROCCO VITTORIO MACRI’
Assisi, 14.10.1999
Dear prof. Bartocci,
cerco di riassumere qui il mio personale punto di vista relativo
alle
domande del suo questionario.
Credo di essermi convinto che esiste una differenza
non
trascurabile tra logica e matematica. In particolare in Fisica
puo’ esistere
una teoria autocontraddittoria senza che cio’ sia manifesto a
livello matematico.
Questo è possibile in quanto la logica è allacciata
al ‘‘tutto"
("il reale è razionale" direbbe Hegel), e da cartesiano
ammetto
che non si può toccare una parte senza interagire con il
resto.
Basterebbe pensare al peso che il principio di ragion sufficiente
esercita
su una teoria fisica pur senza toccarne minimamente il formalismo
matematico.
La matematica invece, se vista come un linguaggio
(al riparo
della mathesis universalis di Cartesio, che è appunto
quella "logica
primordiale" contenente «i primi rudimenti della ragione
umana»),
non permette di asserire o di negare la plausibilità
fisicologicofilosofica
di una teoria o "subteoria" (direbbe Feynman parafrasando
Russell, in
"The Character of Physical Law", «I matematici trattano solo
della
struttura del ragionamento, e non si interessano veramente di
quello di
cui stanno parlando. Non devono neppure sapere quello di cui
stanno parlando,
o, come essi dicono, se quello di cui parlano è
vero»). Illuminante
sotto questo aspetto è il cosiddetto "paradosso di
Kripgenstein"
sull’impossibilità epistemica di cogliere la semantica da
un gruppo
di regole o tormalismi (non mi dilungo su questo punto ma spero di
fare
un articolo al riguardo prima o poi). Sarebbe sufficiente, d’altra
parte,
riflettere sui limiti intrinseci che il teorema di Godel pone alla
stessa
matematica. Sarebbe più opportuno dunque formulare la
domanda del
suo questionario sull’autocontraddittorietà (come ho fatto
io al
convegno di Bologna) piuttosto che su "mathematical
contradictions".
Il nocciolo della questione è che la
matematica
sembra essere costituita da una ragnatela a "maglie larghe" 
facilmente
"bypassabili" o modellabili  mentre la geometria e la fisica
hanno un
"reticolato" più fitto e sottile, sempre sovraordinato
dallo logica
("Una dimostrazione conseguita per via analitica ci garantisce
senz’altro
della validità di una affermazione, ma non sempre del suo
profondo
‘‘perché", ed è questa circostanza che spinge spesso
i geometri
a cercare anche dimostrazioni sintetiche quando pure già
siano in
possesso di dimostrazioni analitiche", U. Bartocci  R.V.
Macrì,
"Il linguaggio della matematica"). In parole più semplici,
il formalismo
matematico non è sufficiente ad "omologare" una teoria
fisica come
intrinsecamente non contraddittoria. E questo perché il
"reticolato"
del formalismo non "copre" totalmente quello della realtà
fisica:
questa infatti è avviluppata in una ragnatela fittissima di
collegamenti
con ‘‘underlying assumptions"  la "conoscenza tacita") di Polanyi
 che
vengono solo implicitamente considerati senza che il formalismo
matematico
li "tocchi": con le parole di Bridgman:
"Ogni sistema di equazioni può comprendere solo una piccolissima parte della situazione fisica effettiva: dietro le equazioni vi è uno sfondo descrittivo enorme, tramite il quale esse stabiliscono legami con la natura".
Se si aggiunge a tutto ciò il sentiero opinabile che la matematica della nostra epoca ha intrapreso, frutto di un «Morbus mathematicorum recens»  per citare Frege  che porta al pericolo di una matematica ‘cabalistica’ che, con le parole di Bacone, "generi" e "procrei" la scienza stessa, a quello che altrove ho definito come "dissonanze del pitagorismo moderno", come far ‘‘digerire’’ a cervelli del calibro di Paul Davies che "d’altra parte il senso comune può generare dei nonsense", o a creare nuove strutture matematiche ogni volta che non siano sufficienti quelle già esistenti per "incapsulare’ ogni frammento della conoscenza (spiega candidamente W.I. McLaughlin in "La risoluzione dei paradossi di Zenone sul moto": "Per due millenni e mezzo i paradossi di Zenone sono stati fonte di discussione e oggetto di analisi, ma solo oggi, grazie e una formulazione dell’analisi matematica che è stata sviluppata nell’ultimo decennio, è possibile risolverli"), non c’è da stupirsi se poi tale sentiero sbuchi nella "moderna metropoli" della meccanica quantistica: "La sua teoria, caro signore, è folle, ma non lo è abbastanza per essere vera", queste famose parole di Niels Bohr sono paradigmatiche della "svolta di questo secolo". Con le parole di Penrose:
«La teoria ha due argomenti molto efficaci a suo favore e solo uno, di scarso rilievo, a sfavore. Innanzitutto, la teoria è sorprendentemente esatta rispetto a tutti i risultati sperimentali fino ad oggi ottenuti. In secondo luogo [...] si tratta di una teoria di straordinaria e profonda bellezza dal punto di vista matematico. L’unica cosa, che può essere detta contro di essa, è che, presa in assoluto, non ha alcun senso!».
E passiamo adesso a toccare più
specificatamente
la teoria fisica in esame. Lei conosce la mia profonda convinzione
di come
la teoria della relatività sia "minata" alle fondamenta da
profondi
e inappianabili errori logicofilosofici invisibili all’intuito
matematico
ma radiografabili e smascherabili da una "rete epistemica" (un mio
neologismo
da lei ben conosciuto) slacciata dal "collare dell’autorità
scientificaE
e incontaminata dalla "logica del successo’’. In altre parole, dal
mio
punto di vista la relatività risulta non solo una teoria
non combaciante
con la realtà fisica (e questa è la parte da lei
condivisa)
ma, addirittura, piena di "salti concettuali" e contraddizioni
logiche
annidate internamente.
Per esempio, lei sa che l’argomento di Selleri
sull’impossibilità
logica di una netta discontinuità  per quanto riguarda la
velocità
della luce  tra sistemi di riferimento inerziali e accelerati mi
trova
d’accordo (d’altronde ero giunto indipendentemente alle stessa
conclusione,
come testimonia un mio lavoro del 97: "Un’interpretazione
antirelativistica
dell’esperimento Sagnac").
Tra l’altro, l’argomentazione "fisica" della
discontinuità
della velocità della luce si basa in ultima analisi sul
"principio
di continuità" di CartesioLeibniz, un corollario, questo,
del principio
di ragion sufficiente: ecco un esempio di come la fisica sia
legata alla
logica  precisamente a quella "logica primordiale" di Cartesio 
e di
come la matematica sia inerme di fronte alla semantica o alle
questioni
di principio: questo sarebbe il vero senso della baconiana
"strumentalità"
della matematica.
Altre "interferenze logiche" si trovano, per citarne
alcune,
nel "paradosso dei gemelli" (qui rimando al mio prossimo lavoro:
"Sillogismo
di Dingle, Twin and Clock Paradoxes e analfabetismo filosofico"),
nel concetto
di campo (il principio di relatività di Einstein  per
quanto questi
dichiari che «la teoria delle relatività scaturisce
dai problemi
del campo»  è incompatibile con il localismo e
quindi con
la realtà del campo, come ho dimostrato nei mio "Asimmetrie
antirelativistiche
del campo"), nella presunta relatività della
simutaneità
(si veda il mio: "Regarding the Theoretical and Experimental
Foundations
of Special Relativity").
La famosa equazione dei fronti d’onda
[x^2 + y^2 + z^2  c^2t^2 = x’^2 + y’^2 + z’^2  c^2t’^2]
alla base della "genesi einsteiniana", può trarre in
inganno
il matematico del XX secolo, ignaro dello "sfondo descrittivo
enorme" (per
l’Einstein del 1905 era addirittura posta come garanzia «che
due
principi fondamentali sono tra loro compatibili»! 
scavalcando lo
stesso Newton, che era solito non darsi pace se non riusciva a
trovare
una "via sintetica"), ma non passerebbe impunemente la "rete" di
un vecchio
Platone, un Aristotele o un Euclide.
Sul come e perché la straordinaria massa di
scienziati
di questo secolo non abbia avvertito ciò, oltre ad essere
con, le
parole di Herbert Dingle:
"One of the most remarkable examples of the paralysis of the intellect by which physics has been afflicted troughout the abandonment by the ‘experimenters’ of the use of their intelligence and their submission to the dictation of mathematicians"
sarà fonte di studi epistemologici per il nuovo millennio che verrà.
Suo RVM
Rocco Vittorio Macrì
c/o Convento Porziuncola
Piazza Martin Luther King, 1/M
06088 S. Maria degli Angeli (Assisi)
Italy
PAUL MARMET
Subject: Re: Inquiry...
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:59:32 0400
From: Paul Marmet <Paul.Marmet@Ottawa.com>
To: umberto bartocci <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
Dear Unberto,
I have spent a few hours reading your paper entitled: "Most common
misunderstanding about Special Relativity (SR)"
I would like you to consider that my comments are purely
scientific
but
coming from a real friend. I wish my comments will be
considered
as
positive comments.
Let me start by writing that your paper is exactly the sort of
things
I
have defended myself several years ago.
Since then, I realised that I have been too much influenced by the
teaching (unique way of thinking) I was forced to listen and
repeat to
get my Ph. D. and get a teaching position later.
It is clear that it was not necessary to read all your paper (even
if I
did) to see your conclusion. You paper starts by a big
fundamental
mistake. Your fundamental philosophy is wrong (which is the
result
of the usual teaching in science). You write:
"Of course, there is no place for questioning the LOGICAL validity
of the
theory, since it presents itself in the quise of a mathemnatical
theory.
. . "
Then, you write:
" . . . which allow to transform a physical situation in a
mathematical
one, and conversely, . . . "
This is extremely wrong. It is impossible to transform
physics
into
mathematics just as it is impossible to transform diagrams,
hammers
and
saws into a house. Hammers and saws are tools but you need
wood
and bricks to built a house.
After writing that, scientist's thinking is overfocussed
forever.
There
is no point to argue any more.
You mean that because the mathematics can give a correct
"relationship"
(I agree with this) between the physical elements that have been
"assumed",
this proves that the "assumed" physical elements are correct!
That conclusion is clearly wrong. It is the basic error in
physics.
Mathematics is not physics. As long as physicists will
accept
such errors,
they will spend time showing that their calculation is correct,
while
the
correcteness of the calculation is irrelevant. It is useless
to
demonstrate how "logical" the calculation between possibly
unphysical
(wrong) hypotheses are. Any discussion becomes then
irrelevant.
If the
mathematics is correct, the physics is correct! (what a non
sense!).
Most
people do not see the seriousness of the problem in physics
because
they
see the logic BETWEEN the relationships, but they do not
understand
why the conclusion is physically wrong.
Let me tell you a story. Some time ago, I wrote to a friend
about
a worker
in a big industry. That worker had the reputation of being a
thief. Since
the employers could not discover what the employee as stealing,
they
decided to search him every day when leaving work. The
company
did not want to be stolen. Since he was traveling by
bicycle, they
were searching him and also his bicycle everyday. They even
dismantle
the bicycle to look inside the frame and inside the tires.
Some years
later, after he left his job, they congratulated him because they
believed
that he was no longer a thief. However, he admitted that
everyday
he was stealing a new bicycle.
This is the way "research" in modern physics is made.
Going back to your paper.
On page 5, (also pages 6. 7 and 8) you write:
Of course, this argument is quite wrong, since alpha is not an
inertial
observer in M, . . .
Einstein has never written that the velocity of light is not
constant
in a
non inertial frame. In such a case, you should give me a
reference.
Since
Einstein claimed the equivalence between gravitational forces and
inertial
forces, then the velocity of light should be different against a
gravitational force.
Then on page 10 you write:
. . . the velocity of light is larger than c. ???
As mentioned above, I cannot argue with you on that basis, because
you
prove that because the mathematics is correct you conclude that
the
physics is correct. I certainly cannot agree with
that. That
proof is completely irrelevant. Because you believe that it
is: ".
. . allow to transform a physical situation in a mathematical one
"
No discussion ABOUT PHYSICS is possible after that.
You
limit the
discussion only to mathematics.
In the example about the thief above, you limit your search to
searching
if
the thief was hiding something inside the tires of his bicycle.
In my case I deal with physics. PHYSICS exists by
itself.
I do not care
to prove that "mathematics" is correct because "mathematics" is
correct.
Nobody can prove you wrong. However, this is useless.
We
can discuss
"real physics" later if you like.
The title of your letter was: "Inquiry". I hope this
satisfies
the answers
you were asking for. Keep working because you are at the
point
I was some years ago. The important point is that you keep
thinking
and asking
questions. In a few years from now, you will agree with me.
I hope I am not losing a friend. This is honestly what I
think.
I would
certainly love to discuss fundamental physics.
Very Sincerely
Paul Marmet
EMail: Paul.Marmet@Ottawa.com
Subject:
Re:
ideas upon which all are supposed to agree
Date:
Tue,
21 Sep 1999 16:58:10 0400
From:
Paul
Marmet <Paul.Marmet@Ottawa.com>
To:
umberto
bartocci <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
Dear Umberto and friends,
With pleasure, I am always carefully reading all the persuasive
arguments
from my friends, who (like me) are unhappy with the fact that
modern
physics is not compatible with common sense. They want to
make
their
contribution to correct the errors of the past. This is very
generous.
To do so, many suggest their own solution but nobody else is allow
to
reconsider "some" of their "exclusive" supreme beliefs. Of
course,
those
supreme beliefs are THE IDEAS UPON WHICH ALL ARE SUPPOSED TO
AGREE.
This is a very subtle way to claim a dogma. Therefore, they
believe
that some "dogma" must be maintained.
=====
There must be no dogma in fundamental research. May be I
must
admit that I have one: The result must be compatible with
observations.
But, I have another one which is equally indispensable, but it is
philosophical.
I believe in "Common Sense". If anything in science is not
compatible
with "Common Sense", whatever it is, then that is completely
wrong.
Some Nobel laureates clearly stated that Nature is not compatible
with
Common Sense. Therefore I believe that they are fatefully wrong on
that
point.
At least, you know where I stand.
Since I do not want to lose any of your interesting messages,
please
note
that my email address has been changed. My new email is:
Paul.Marmet@Ottawa.com
Let me have the pleasure to read all your interesting messages.
Sincerely,
Paul Marmet
========
Paul Marmet
EMail: Paul.Marmet@Ottawa.com
Web site: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca
DENNIS MCCARTHY
Subject: A Very
Good
Argument Against SR.....
Date:
Sat, 9 Oct 1999 18:20:13 EDT
From:
DJMenCk@aol.com
To:
bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it, ncgaleczge@netcologne.de
In a message dated 10/9/99 5:41:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it writes:
"When I asked to you, and to other people sharing our same
feelings
AGAINST SR, to indicate what was in their opinion the BEST (and
not the
SHORTEST!) antirelativistic argument, I was sincerely trying to
see whether
there existed indeed some really good and still unknown weapons to
be used
against "irrationalistic phyisics".
Gentlemen,
I think one of the best arguments favoring a
LorentzPoincare
ether view of the Lorentz transforms over the SR derivation is the
fact
that the Lorentz transforms necessarily follow (this cannot be
denied)
for acoustic/media processes when measured by
acoustical/mediabased instruments.
No one can dispute the validity of the ether/media explanation
(i.e., the
natural, Newtonian, fluid dynamic derivation) for these Lorentzian
formulas
for acoustic/media processes.
To give a brief example, consider an openair
sound
(or any wave) clock that uses a pulse of sound (or any wave) to
measure
time. A single unit of time would be determined by a pulse
that moves
from a base to a roof and is reflected back to the base
again. If
such a sound clock is strapped to the top of, say, a train that is
moving
through the atmosphere, the rate of the sound clock is retarded
with respect
to other sound clocks that are stationary in the atmosphere by
1/gamma.
Relativistic Doppler equations also follow for pulses emitted or
received
by such sound clocks when in relative motion. If you use
both sound
clocks and winddeformable rulers or "sound rulers" (that contract
when
moving with respect to the atmosphere by a factor of 1/gamma,)
then the
Lorentz transformations necessarily follow for acoustic processes
that
are measured by such instruments. This has been proved
mathematically
many times. Thus, all physicists have to agree that the
Lorentz transforms
follow for a specific class of media equations for purely
Newtonian, Galilean
reasons. Physicists can't deny the correctness of the media
explanation
for the Lorentz equations.
An interesting question now arises concerning
Newton's
first two principles of reasoning  which claim that as far as it
is possible
you must assume that like effects arise from like causes. Is
this
a valid scientific point or is it more scientifically reasonable
to assume
that like effects (acoustic and electromagnetic adherence to the
Lorentz
equations) are produced by completely different causes (media
explanation
for sound and SR's postulates for light)? Is it truly
reasonable
to assume completely different axioms to explain the conformity of
electromagnetism
to Lorentz equations when everyone must already accept another
explanation
for the fact those equations also apply to acoustics? Let's
even
make this point more clear. Let's compare two indepth
physics tomes,
one proSR, the other proether. Let's further imagine that
each
tome devotes chapter 10 to fluid dynamics and acoustics and
chapter 11
to electromagnetism and the Lorentz equations. In chapter 10
of both
books, you would have to include the acoustic derivation of the
Lorentz
equations. However, in chapter 11 of the proSR tome, you
would have
to tell students to forget everything they have learned about
Galilean
relativity, Newtonian frameworks, acoustics, media waves,
materialistic
causeandeffect, and their intuitive notions of time, distance,
and velocity.
You would then have to describe completely new postulates that
would shock
the brightest of the class, and then you would have to rederive
completely
all the equations you had already derived in chapter 10. The
chapter
would consist of dozens of pages.
In the proether tome, however, Chapter 11
would
read as follows:
"Electromagnetism is also a media process which must currently be
measured
by electromagnetic clocks and electromagnetic rulers and so
adheres to
the Lorentz equations. See chapter 10 on the acoustic
Lorentz equations."
In brief, SR uses new and arbitrary principles
of
the universe to reexplain effects like Doppler, Sagnac, Lorentz
transforms,
interference, reflection, refraction, aberration, etc.
when all
of these effects occur for media processes and are explained quite
simply
without using such new, extraordinary and arbitrary
postulates. The
proether explanation should obviously be preferred.
Dennis McCarthy
ROBERTO MONTI
Bologna, 24 agosto 1999
Caro Umberto
Rispondo alle tue domande in modo esplicito e, spero, non fraintendibile.
Il miglior argomento contro la Relatività è la sua assoluta mancanza di verifiche sperimentali, o, il che è lo stesso, la contraddizione tra i suoi postulati e la realtà sperimentale.
1° Esempio: gli esperimenti del tipo "MichelsonMorley" non
hanno
mai dato il "risultato nullo" supposto dalla Relatività.
Tu ti ostini spesso a sottolineare che il risultato è stato
"inferiore alle aspettative".
Come Selleri fai finta di non aver constatato  o non vuoi
constatare,
che:
a) Il risultato è sicuramente non nullo, il che toglie ogni
significato alle trasformazioni di Lorentz, nate per spiegare un
supposto
"risultato nullo".
b) Il risultato è non solo "non nullo", ma sicuramente periodico, il che toglie ogni "costanza" alla Costante Universale di Einstein: cM == 2L/DT .
A chiarimento finale ti allego copia della comunicazione che
presenterò
a Como il 15 Settembre.
Leggi attentamente, cosa che non fai mai, le Referenze citate.
Quelle che non hai te le spedirò io.
Infine, pongo a te la stessa domanda:
Puoi indicare anche una sola verifica sperimentale del postulato
Einsteiniano
sulla costanza di cM e sulla "non esistenza" dell’etere?
Cordiali saluti
Roberto
FRANCISCO J. MULLER
Subject: Light aberration
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:40:42 0400
From: "Francisco" <varelaacademy@iscnet.net>
To: "Umberto Bartocci" <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
Dear professor Umberto Bartocci:
Excuse me for the delay in answering your comment on Galeczki's
view
of light aberration. I must say that not only I agree with your
analysis,
but I even wrote something similar in a paper I presented in our
NPA meeting
of 1997, at Storrs, Connecticut, USA.
I will copy the pertinent paragraph here. If you want to see the
whole
paper I could mail it to you or FAX it, (is a little long). The
Title is:
"Discussion of the Relativistic and Classical Doppler Theories".
I DO NOT say that Doppler is similar to aberration. I only
mentioned
to you that Einstein treated both effects using the same equation.
It is
true that this is very "elegant", but mathematical elegance
sometimes propers
at the expense of physical disgrace. Anyway, concerning Doppler
and aberration
here is what I said in 1997:
"We would have never noticed these effects if
it
were not for the
circumstance that our 'receiver', the Earth, constantly changes
its
velocity
direction around a quasi circular orbit. Thus the privilege exists
of
observing Doppler when the earth approaches a star, or recedes
from
it six
months later. Also, aberration is detectable as a 'differential'
aberration,
by comparing the situation when the earth travels perpendicularly
to
the
line of sight to the right and six months later to the left.
Relativity
uses
this strategy to accomodate the [velocity] changes to a formula
that
contains only the relative velocity between emitter and receiver".
So that is why SRT can still "calculate"
the
aberration constant, as
you say, but with the wrong theory. "Half aberration" makes no
sense
from a theoretical point of view as Galeczki shows. We can say
that SRT
is right, but for the wrong reason.
Concerning "mathematical elegance" and "logical
consistency" I do have a comment to make inspired by the criticism
that
O'Rahilly made on the way that SRT "explains" the Doppler effect,
(which
can be also extended to a criticism about aberration in SRT). The
criticism
is this, and it bears upon the logical consistency of SRT, or,
better,
upon its "methodological consistency".
The usual relativistic methodology is this:
Two observers, each in its own frame of
reference,
moving at relative
velocity V, observe a "common" phenomenon, (event, force, speed,
time
interval, etc). Now, it is crucial for SRT to distinguish between
the
PROPER frame and the NONPROPER one. The Lorentz transformation is
simply
a recipe to go from some given PROPER values to the
NONPROPER values
in the other frame. Or viceversa, given the NONPROPER values, to
get the
PROPER ones.
In such a method the WHOLE PHENOMENON to be
measured,
observed, studied, etc, must be contained in the PROPER FRAME. For
example,
the force between TWO static charges. They only show a Coulomb
force in
the PROPER FRAME. Then, when "seen" from the NONPROPER frame at
velocity
V, a new Lorentz transformation term arises which SRT interprets
as the
"magnetic field B".
Another example: the PROPER observer measures a
time or a length interval in his frame. Then the NONPROPER
observer applies
the Lorentz equations and gets the NONPROPER values, which happen
to be
dilated, or contracted respect the PROPER values. But the interval
is COMPLETED
in the PROPER FRAME. Its beginning and its end are both, PROPER
events
in THAT frame. Likewise, the beginning and end are, both,
nonproper events
in the other frame.
Einstein himself, in the "thoughtexperiment"
whereby
he "deduced" the Lorentz transformation by synchronizing two
distant clocks,
followed this method at the beginning of his 1905 paper. The
events were:
1emission from clock A; 2reflection at clock B; 3final
reception at
clock A. But all three clocks are stationary in the PROPER frame.
And,
therefore, they both are "moving" from the viewpoint of the
NONPROPER
frame. Well, if we agree that the previous description is the
orthodox
METHOD to be used by SRT, then it happens that, the way Einstein
applied
SRT to the Doppler (and aberration) phenomena in Section 7 of his
paper,
CONTRADICTS the previous methodology he himself started. Why?
Because in this case the beginning of the
event,
(emission of light) and the end, (reception of light) are placed
in DIFFERENT
frames of reference, moving at relative speed V. So there is
no way
to apply the crucial concepts of PROPER and NONPROPER
frames. In
reality, Einstein MIXEDUP the two frames. He allowed the
phenomenon of
light propagation to CROSS OVER from one frame to the other.
I know
that most authors and popularizers of SRT do the same thing. They
even
allow "information" to be exchanged from one frame to the other;
or a third
observer to "jump" from one to the other.
That is absurd. The only communication possible between the two
frames
is, precisely, the LORENTZ equations. That is why all
experiments
designed to "test" SRT and which rely on light signals to be
exchanged
between "moving" and "nonmoving" frames, is a futile endeavor.
And this is the case of the Doppler (and
aberration)
theories in SRT.
To be consistent with his original methodology, (the one whereby
he
DEDUCED the Lorentz equations in Sections 2 and 3 of his paper),
Einstein
SHOULD HAVE placed the emitter and receiver of light, BOTH
stationary in
one frame. And then, analyze what happens from the NONPROMER
frame, for
which both emitter and receiver would be "moving". But of course,
if emitter
and receiver are relatively stationary then there would be no net
observable
Doppler, nor any net observable aberration at all.
Alternatively,
Einstein could put the emitter and the receiver in the SAME frame,
specifying
that the receiver is moving relatively to the emitter. But then he
had
to admit the classical equation for the Doppler and aberration
effects,
and "transform" it to a nonproper frame in which,both the emitter
and
the receiver have an additional relative velocity V. He
might get
the extra beta factor, typical of SRT, but he could not explain
neither
Doppler nor aberration in this way without the classical
beginnings. As
O'Rahilly says, Einsteins procedure is unnecessary, showing
nothing new.
His added beta factor cannot be tested experimentally. It depends
on what
an "imaginary" observer might see when compared to the real
observer in
our laboratory. It is sheer phantasy.
As a point of fact, Einstein changed (and
hence,
violated) the methodology of his own theory when crossing from the
initial
sections of his paper to the final ones. In this sense I
disagree
with you about the
logical consistency of Einsteinian relativity. If other
authors
have made a
better job than Einstein, then we might accept a selfconsistent
Theory
of
Relativity. But insofar as Einstein is concerned, I see everywhere
in his
1905 paper a constant lack of logical consistency.
I studied patiently this paper for almost a
complete
year. I am sure
that if you do the same thing you will find a continuous parade of
logical
"vandalisms". I am really surprised that the editors of the
"Annalen
der
Physik", (which included Planck), ever accepted this paper.
Again, if you are interesed in this
study,
I can send a copy by mail.
(The paper is called: "Did Einstein deduce the Lorentz
transformation
in
1905?". The answer is: NO, if by deduction we mean a
logically
consistentdemonstration).
`Well, in coming to a close I would like to conclude that:
1Galeczki is right in the fact that the usual relativistic
deduction
of
aberration does not work in practice.
2You are right in the fact that aberration is observable only as
a
"differential" effect, in which case the relativistic deffect
mentioned
by
Galeczki and others is avoided.
3I add that, from a deeper point of view, Einstein did not really
produce a
Doppler/aberration theory consistent with
his
own initial methodology.
I am happy that you bring these topics for
discussion
among us. Let me
know of any other idea(s).
My best regards,
Francisco J. Muller
Subject: Quick
answer
Date:
Thu, 2 Sep 1999 17:25:44 0400
From:
"Francisco" <varelaacademy@iscnet.net>
To:
"Umberto Bartocci" <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
Dear professor Umberto Bartocci:
Unfortunately after I finished with my
adventure
with Tosca I had some other immediate work to do and was not able
to study
in detail your last Email neither this recent one of september.
Also I
was engaged in trying to make the final version of my paper
presented in
Bologna to send to Monti. Regretfully I was not able to repeat an
experiment
performed in 1973 as well as I have desired. In the middle of it
the whole
apparatus lost its balance and I could not repair it easily. Then
I spent
many many days reviewing my old notes of 1973 only to discover
that the
conditions of that rotational unipolar induction experiment was
not exactly
as I had presented in Bologna. So I am in the middle of an ethical
conflict.
Should I submit the paper as it is anyway? Or rather, should I
modify it?
Or should I try to make a new repetition of the experiment? At
this moment
I do not know what to do, buy I hope I can solve this "impasse"
within
this month. Question: is there any specific deadline for
submitting the
papers to Monti?
Having said this let me make a very few
comments
about your last Email.
The comparison of doubting SR being similar to
doubting
the Copernican System is, by an ironical twist, a very good one
for us
to criticize relativity. Precisely one of the problems
connected
with the Principle of Equivalence is that it would admit, from a
logical
point of view, the system of Copernicus as well as that of
Ptolemy.
When it comes to rotational motion General Relativity has opted
for the
"equivalence" of rotating frames. Hence, it is the same whether we
use
Copernicus or Ptolemy. Do you agree that SR admits this
"ambiguity"?
I know it does so precisely in the case I have
studied
most for 26 years now: Unipolar Induction. If you want a criticism
of SR
in the experimental field, please, check my experiments in the
home page
of the NPA, this is:
http://www.members.home.net/saiph/npahome.html
and then click on the article "Unipolar Induction". My main points
there are:
1)The rotational unipolar induction experiment "escapes" from SRT,
(in the sense that SRT cannot explain it. THis is no logical
problem, because
SRT was never meant to be applied to rotating systems, in spite of
the
fact that relativists sometimes tried DO so, beginning with
Einstein himself).
2)To explain rotational unipolar induction the only thing
relativists
can do is to "invoke" General Relativity. This is the paper by
Schiff,
1939, where the rotating magnet is assumed to be quiet and the
REST OF
THE UNIVERSE is visualized as rotating backwards!!! Then a
new tensorial
term appears that "warps" the metric, and Voila!, that is
rotational unipolar
induction.
As you see, here is where the methodological
ambiguity
enters in: they give equal physical value to a rotating magnet as
to a
backward rotating universe instead. Hence.... Copernicus is
equivalent
to Ptolemy!!!
3)Disgusted with this "magic" fairy tale solution I was able to
modify
the rotational inductor in the form of a translational one and....
THE
RESULT IS THE SAME AS IN THE ROTATIONAL CASE, provided one avoids
transversal
edges to be present. (That is why I presented in Bologna a
paper
about "moving magnetic edges")
The resulting positive unipolar induction, in this
case,
(a rectilinear inertial one), CONTRADICTS special relativity, and
we cannot
"escape into" General Relativity, because now the system is neithe
rotational
nor accelerating.
Hence... AT LEAST IN THIS CASE, SRT, is
contradicted
by simple, first order experimental facts.
That much I can say about the invalidation of SRT from an
experimental
point of view.
But what happens is that not even people from
NPA
understand my experiment or, if they do, or think they do, they
believe
it is a trivial one that can be simply "explained" using current
engineering
ideas about "cutting" lines, etc, etc.
What can I do?
I acknowledge that in my experiment there is still some relative
motion
between the central magnets and the outside yoke, but this is just
a circumstantial
requirement of the need to use a CLOSE circuit. The yoke is needed
to ISOLATE
the external branch ECR from the magnetic field.
The best proof that my experiments are fundamental, and true, and
antiSRT
would beto repeat them with an "open" circuit, (an antenna), as
Cardone
and Mignani have done.
But I have never being able to perform
succesfully
an "open circuit" experiment. That is why I was so interested in
Cardone's
experiment.
[No, they have not sent to me any comment about
my study of that experiment.]
Back to the logical consistency of SRT I can only say one thing:
I studied during a complete year the first
three
sections of Einstein's original paper of 1905. It is full of
logical and
mathematical and methodological inconsistencies. I can hardly
believe that
such a sloppy paper could have ever been published in a journal
where Max
Planck was one of the editors. I suppose that, since Einstein
reached the
same "transformations" that Lorentz reached a year before (in the
same
Journal), that the reviewers did not care too much about
Einstein's way
of "deducing" the transformations. But I can challenge the entire
scientific
community to show if Einstein, REALLY deduced the Lorentz
transformation
in a LOGICAL way in that famous paper of 1905. I think HE DID NOT.
If you have never read this paper in detail,
please
do so. But... then it might be a waste of time. Even if you agree
that
there are about 7 logical inconsistencies in those 3 sections, the
conclusion
would be:
Special Relativity Theory as we know it today, IS NOT based on the
famous 1905 paper of Einstein.
Do you think it is worthwhile, from a stratetic point of view, to
insist
in the sloppiness of this paper?
Maybe it is. I am sure that Wesley would drastically disagree.
Yet, I already made the study many years ago.
To
say the least, Einstein even "integrates" a numerical equation. He
makes
superficial mistakes in identifying a variable. He uses a
condition obtained
for the longitudinal ray to be applicable to the transversal ray
as well.
Doing so he contradicts d(tau)/dt=0 for the transversal ray. He
really
assumes that the length are contracted when moving, in an "ad hoc"
manner,
much as Fitzgerald did before him. Yet, Fitzgerald is criticized
for this
"ad hocness", whereas Einstein is praised for it. Finally, what he
proved
for variables, (x,y,z,t) describing only an optical event, he
generalizes
to any event whatsoever, in a most arbitrary way, thus violating
the method
of "logical induction". In short: this is a piece of forgery. I am
almost
sure that Einstein knew the result before hand and that then he
"maneuvered"
a way to "deduce" the Lorentz equations. Thus he introduced those
"imaginary"
clock synchronizations with imaginary observers that nobody ever
has seen
in any experiment whatsoever. In short: Einstein's
"gedankenexperiment"
of 1905 is a perfect fairy tale, showing all the irrationalities
of a piece
of phantasy. It seems as if it were the perfect example of
his own
recommendations. He said: "the theorist should give free
reins to
his fancy; there is no other way to the goal", or something like
that.
He said that "the emotional desire to arrive at the goal" is what
must
be used, not just "logic". Thus, he concluded that "the
fundamental principles
of Physics are free inventions of the human mind".
Well, Umberto, I must stop here. This was longer than I intended.
I hope I can go more deeply into your correspondence with
Galeczki.
And if you have any specific information about the Monti
publication please,
do send it to me. Thanks very much.
Cordially, Francisco J. Muller
NEIL MUNCH
From: Neil Munch <N_Munch@compuserve.com>
To: Umberto Bartocci <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
Novembre 16, 1999
Dear Umberto,
Thanks for your email of 8/9/99 responding to Wesley's comments,
and
the copy of your paper "Most common misunderstandings about
SR".
Your paper was thoughtprovoking and contained some new [to me]
thoughts
about SR. I liked your email question to Wesley:
"What is . . . the actual best argument . . . that one could
produce today against relativity?"
That provides a challenge to all of us to see if we can reach some
sort of agreement on what is wrong with SR. I will suggest
two answers,
one general and one specific, then discuss parts of your paper.
1a. My answer #1: Assumptions in SR (such as listed in an Appendix here) have been allowed to shift inappropriately. Those shifts were masked in turn by inadequate notation. As a consequence, that which is called 'special relativity (SR)' is actually a collection of differing results each based on its particular subset of assumptions. In many cases, there are conflicts between results of subsets because their assumptions conflict. Five examples are discussed in Ref. [1]. When any single set of those assumptions is constantly assumed, no satisfactory solution to SR objectives is found.
1b. Discussion: Even a casual review shows that shifts do
occur
in SR assumptions. For example, the definitions of the terms
x,x',t,t'
shift between interrelated intervals to unrelated
pointvalues.
The question then is not whether shifts occur but "What are the
influences
of those shifts?". In answer, first, there is nothing
incorrect in
the shifting of assumptions, per se, as long as conditions such as
the
following are met:
a) Readers are alerted to that shift.
b) Each result is tied to its specific subset of
assumptions
used in its derivation, and the usage of its result is limited to
that
domain.
c) Assumptions do not contradict each other within any given
subset of assumptions and results.
Unfortunately, that has not been done in SR, as discussed
next.
Assumptions from the Appendix are indicated by CAPITAL letters
and/or their
numbers.
Re a) above, readers and authors have been unaware of
assumptions
shifts because they are unmentioned and because those shifts are
masked
by inadequate notation.
Re b) above, results have not be limited to the domains of
their
assumptions. For instance in Einstein texts, results are
reached
assuming #10 LIGHT USE and the related assumptions of #11
INTERVALS and
#19 SYMMETRY. Those results are then applied in contradictory
situations
where x,x',t,t' are pointvalues and where length and time vary
asymmetrically
 all without notifying the reader. Then, #10 LIGHT USE is
reintroduced
via the light wave equations and contradictory results comingled
in the
desire to show that SR is compatible with MichelsonMorley (MM)
test results
(#30) or Einstein's Lorentz transformation (ELT) per assumption
#31.
There is no known case where results are tied to a constant
subset of
assumptions per condition b) above.
Re c) above, we can see that many of the assumptions in the
Appendix
are binary, that is, they assume either the existence or absence
of something.
For instance, one assumes either #19 SYMMETRY or ASYMMETRY of
length and
time changes  but not both because that would be self
conflicting.
Yet both sides of these assumptions are commonly used in the texts
as seen
with use of precise notation. Two examples are:
a) the Taylor and Wheeler [2] text commences by assuming both
symmetry
and asymmetry (#19) in their interval equation; b) many texts
simultaneously
assume the terms x,x',t,t' in ELT are pointvalues in some places
and
intervals in other places  even though intervals are required
for dimensional
compatibility with v. These shifts produce significantly
different
results, yet remain unquestioned in the literature.
We are unlikely to have an intelligent discussion
about
SR as long as underlying assumptions are allowed to shift about or
be combined
in such ways.
2a. My answer #2: First, we define a 'rest' frame K containing observer P and a 'moving' frame K' containing a light source, and also define light speed seen on K by P as cP and light speed on K' as seen from K by P as cP'. Using precise notation and holding #10 LIGHT USE constant, it is easily shown, c.f. [3], that cP' varies significantly from cP by the amount predicted by Newtonian mechanics. Since the only difference between this light speed and the light speed measured by P on her own frame is associated with the velocity v of the light source, this contradicts Einstein's Second Principle  an underlying tenet of SR.
2b. Discussion: This anomaly was recognized by Einstein
early
in his 1905 paper, though its conflict with the Second Principle
is not
clearly seen until precise notation is used and #10 LIGHT USE is
held constant.
This is a serious flaw because this kind of light use is required
in MichelsonMorley
(MM) tests, Doppler experiments, the light wave equations and in
many
applications of the Lorentz transformation (ELT). If
assumptions
shift away from #10 LIGHT USE, then it may be possible to show
compatibility
with other objectives but any resulting equations would not
necessarily
be applicable to MM, the ELT and Doppler experiments
(assumptions #30,
#31, #32). Nor would the link be preserved to Einstein's
gedanken
experiment which he used in his 'proof' of spacetime in the first
place.
Let's consider one situation in Einstein's 1916 book [4]
when
assumptions shift away from #10 LIGHT USE with associated shifts
of #11
INTERVALS to point values and #19 SYMMETRY to asymmetry.
There, he
first assumes the light wave equations, written here as:
x = c t and x' = c' t' (M1a, M1b)
Then he reaches the LC & TD equations
x / x' = g and t / t' = 1 / g (M2a, M2b)
One might easily expect to be correct in combining and reducing the above equations to:
c / c' = g2 (M3)
If (M3) were valid, it would contradict SR's 2nd principle. But (M3) is not valid because it combines equations which are based on selfcontradictory assumptions. Frequent repetition of such flawed steps in SR is ample reason for its rejection.
3. Comments on your paper: I would like to raise questions
in
what I hope are not "resolute obstructionism" but friendly
comments which
may lead to a better understanding of those parts that are wrong
[if any]
and thereby gain a glimpse of the kinds of future research that
may be
needed to fix them. I welcome any response or corrections to
the
following.
It seems to me that your paper continues Einstein's
practices
of shifting assumptions in ways which are contradictory to the
three conditions
in "My answer #1" above. Although Einstein often shifted
objectives
(e.g., among assumptions #27 through #32) and then shifted his
assumptions
to reach any particular objective, his initial and probably
overriding
objective was to reconcile the Newtonian changes of light speed in
moving
frames with the constancy of light speed measurements (#28).
His
initial assumptions #1 through #11 matched that purpose.
3a. Shifts in observer position: In your paper you also
shift
back and forth inappropriately between assumptions in your effort
to show
that SR applies in a number of other domains. For example,
you want
to justify the usefulness of SR in nonrectilinear motion (shift
from #3)
by shifting the observer (assumption #9) to a distant IFR (the
existence
of an IFR is yet another assumption). But in SR, where
results are
presumed to depend on the position of observer and measurement
standards,
that position is of high importance. Once Einstein's 'rest'
frame
(#9) is established all measurements must be made from that frame,
or else
conflicting results may be reached. Shifts from that
position are
only acceptable if they have no effect on results with initial
assumptions
(#1 through #11), or if the new subset of results is linked to
its revised
subset of assumptions  which is not done in your paper.
When observer location (#9) is shifted other assumptions may
also be affected. For example, the first principle (#7)
would likely
be contradicted by the concept of a privileged IFR frame, i.e.,
the IFR
observer would clearly see a different view looking at earth than
an observer
on earth looking back at the IFR which appears to travel at high
speed.
You've increased the number of frames (#8) to three (one for light
source,
one for observer on earth, and one for IFR). That requires
Einstein's
theorem of addition of velocities (its correctness is another
assumption,
see note [5]). It seems highly unlikely that assumptions #10
LIGHT
USE and #11 INTERVALS can still be applied (as done with initial
assumptions)
with such a distant observer. If so, your subset of results
and
assumptions for the IFR observer would no longer be compatible
with MM
test results (#30), Doppler (#32), the light wave equations, and
many uses
of ELT (#31). Does not your paper describe a different
subset of
SR than that presumed to reconcile Newtonian kinematics with
constancy
of light speed (#28)?
3b. Sagnac inapplicability: By moving the observer to a distant IFR, you want to show in your Section 3 that Sagnac effect is properly described by SR. But unless the radius is extended to infinity, the path will not be rectilinear and the observed 'moving' frame(s) will have different paths and speeds than seen in rectilinear motion. The Sagnac (and MichelsonGale and GPS) tests are performed in the real world where accelerations due to gravity and centrifugal and Coriolis effects will influence results IF the light photon have mass. If we assume (another assumption) that light photons have mass (c.f. PoundRepka) their paths and speeds would be influenced in Sagnac environments in ways predicted by oldfashioned Newtonian equations of rotational motion (here called "NRM"). Wouldn't it be wise to determine what the NRM equations predict before we ascribe behavior of photons in Sagnac tests to SR or nonSR or ether or whatever? My very limited analyses show NRM effects to be of the correct sense and perhaps the magnitude of the Sagnac results  but that certainly should be checked by someone more talented in kinetics. In any case, if we hold to kinematics (#1) and its absence of forces, Sagnac is inapplicable.
3c. Light's speed: Re your Section 4, I agree there is
something
amiss with the Second principle, and I think more research is
required
on that  such as studies of lightspeed from a linearly
accelerating
light source. You speculate that light speed may be constant
in respect
to an inertial frame  but what light speed would one expect on
an IFR
from a linearly accelerating light source? With the
accelerations
related to rotation, as in Sagnac effects, the data from the GPS
seem to
show that light speed around Earth in each direction via
satellites and
ground stations is constant relative to an entrained nonrotating
ether
[or inertial space]. But, that may just as well be a result of
Coriolis
acceleration in the same way that a Foucault pendulum remains
unaffected
by the Earth's rotation.
There are many other assumptions mentioned in your paper,
such
as Minkowski's spacetime and relationships of SR to GR
(assumption #26),
which also seem to be additional subsets of results when tied to
their
specific assumptions most of which contradict initial SR
assumptions.
In your Section 6 on Roemer's results, his results were of great
value
in 1676, but hardly worth a detailed analysis since his measured c
was
about 30% low and probably too inaccurate for such
conclusions. Modern
radar data to the moon and Mars are more accurate but still
inconclusive.
Curt Renshaw is working with JPL on recent radar data to higher
speed satellites
that may have some promise but I don't know what conclusions they
have
reached as to substantiation or rejection of SR. I do seem to
recall Curt
said that JPL never uses SR in any of their trajectory
calculations.
But all of these experiments have shifted from SR's kinematic
domain (#1)
and, in my opinion, have little bearing on the subset of SR
intended to
meet objective #28.
3d. Stellar aberration: Likewise the shifts in observer
position
(#9) in stellar aberration in your Section 6 are similar to your
observer
shifts discussed above. Einstein also shifted the observer
away from
a position at a telescope on Earth. The desire to move the
observer
to an IFR is understandable to avoid complexities of Earthbased
analyses
and the ridiculous observation of stars moving at >>
c. But the earthbased
observer is the 'rest' frame if SR initial assumptions are to held
constant.
So, stellar aberration is meaningless in SR if the observing frame
is rotating.
I will not comment further on these Sections since I hope my
concerns with their assumption shifts are already clear.
4. Definition of special relativity (SR): You are to be commended on attempting to minimize confusion by stating your definition of SR. But I believe your version shifts both assumptions and results to subsets of GR (assumption (#26). That's certainly your prerogative, but you need to alert readers of the shift from Einstein's initial reconciliation of Newtonian kinematics with lightspeed constancy (#28) and away from #10 LIGHT USE. My definition, which should come as no surprise, would be:
"That which is currently called 'Special Relativity" is actually a melange of subsets of objectives, assumptions and results, where any individual subset has consistent and compatible objectives, assumptions and resulting equations. Many of these individual subsets conflict because one subset of objectives, assumptions and results conflict with those of other subsets. Such an environment has made it possible to prove or refute any particular subset of results by simply shifting the underlying assumptions to or away from those in that subset."
5. Final thoughts: I do not mean to appear overly critical of your paper or to speak overly long about my concerns with uncontrolled assumption shifts. In defense of your paper, it does not shift assumptions more than other papers throughout this century including those by Einstein. But it is frustrating to find that so few contemporary authors investigate or even acknowledge such shifts, or implement any means for their control. Until that happens, and we return to the basic research to understand light propagation in various environments, I fear we will continue spinning our wheels without gainful forward motion.
References and notes:
[1] Munch, N.E., "Conflicts in SR resulting from assumption
shifts",
Galilean Electrodynamics, Special Issue No. 2, Fall 1999.
(Available in
early Oct.)
[2] Taylor, E.F., Wheeler, J.A., "Spacetime Physics", Freeman
&
Co., 1963. The authors commence with two conflicting
assumptions
of the light wave equation Dx=cDt (#10) and rotated coordinates
(#19 ASYMMETRY).
Their starting equation is (interval)2 = (Dt)2(Dx)2. But
with light
use (#10), length and time must vary symmetrically and the Taylor
&
Wheeler interval has the trivial value of zero.
[3] Munch, N.E., "Conflicting relationships in SR and its Doppler
equations",
Galilean Electrodynamics, pp. 111116, Vol. 9 No.6, Nov./Dec.
1998.
[4] Einstein, A.E. "Relativity; the special and the general
theory",
pp 3337, Crown Publ., 1916/1961.
[5] For velocity v between frames K and K' and w between K' and
K",
the addition of velocities theorem determines velocity W between K
and
K". The accumulated relativistic effects of K' as seen from
K and
of K" as seen by K' is different from that effect when K' is
removed and
relativistic changes on K" seen from K at velocity W. This
seems
to be a flaw in the addition of velocities theorem.
Appendix
Thirtyfour Assumptions In SRT Derivations And Usage
And Some Of Their Shifts
#1. Kinematics (no influence of external forces) vs kinetics.
#2. Constant velocity v between frames.
#3. Rectilinear motion (no rotation or curved paths).
Light speed:
#4. Constant measured lightspeed c regardless of source speed
(2nd
principle).
#5. Measurement of c is correct, e.g., not influenced by
measurement
apparatus.
#6. Light speed c is equal to em speed c.
Frames of reference:
#7.No privileged frame (1st principle).
#8. Two frames (usually) vs three or more; the frame of light
quanta
is ignored.
#9. One frame is consistently the "rest frame" from which
observations
are made. (Observer position and hence "rest frame" is often
shifted to
another frame.)
#10. Use (or nonuse) of light travel to relate x,x',t,t'.
This
is termed "light use".
#11. Intervals (vs point values) nature of the terms x,x',t,t'.
#12. Variable definition of terms t, t' (e.g.,clocktime, clock
rate,
time between ticks, lifetime, period between waves) and of x, x'.
#13. Universality of orientation of c & v. (All
orientations
vs one orientation.)
#14. Linearity (i.e., single root) vs nonlinearity (more than 1
root)
of equations.
#15. v = v' (vs v ¹ v'), i.e., for any 2 frames, each frame
sees
the other at the same v.
#16. Real (actual) relativistic changes in lengths and times, vs
apparent
changes.
#17. Concern with simultaneity of clocks, vs simultaneity of time
intervals.
#18. No relativistic changes in proper values of length and time,
as
measured against standards in observer's own frame.
#19. Symmetrical relativistic changes of length and time (e.g.,
length
contractions are accompanied by time contractions) vs
asymmetrically.
#20. Applicability of techniques (such as rotated coordinates,
tensor
analyses and determinants) are assumed without justification.
#21. Nonexistence of ether or other privileged inertial frames.
#22. Presumption of a real (vs apparent) spacetime continuum.
#23. Real (vs inertial) changes in mass and momentum with v.
#24. Ignore conflicts with quantum mechanics.
#25. Derived equations are selfconsistent (vs selfconflicting).
#26. SRT is presumed to provide an underlying basis of GRT even
though
their domains (absence vs presence of accelerations) are mutually
exclusive.
Objectiverelated assumptions:
#27. SRT is compatible with Maxwell's equations.
#28. SRT explains constancy of c on moving frames.
#29. SRT is compatible with Lorentz contraction.
#30. SRT is compatible with MichelsonMorley (MM) test data.
#31. SRT is compatible with the Lorentz transformation (ELT).
#32. SRT is compatible with Doppler and stellar aberration
measurements.
#33. Results limited to their specific assumptions (vs not
limited).
#34. Dimensional compatibility vs noncompatibility.
PANOS PAPPAS
Subject:
Re:
The missing link
Date:
Thu,
28 Oct 1999 15:52:31 +0300
From:
P
T Pappas <pappasp@ibm.net>
To:
umberto
bartocci <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>,
Dear Umberto,
I did not participate in this discussion, but I feel I have
finally
to. I
am glad you are asking rigor for any theory and proof, as besides
Physicist,
I am also a Mathematician as you.
As we discussed the last day in Bologna where we last met, from a
Mathematical point of view Relativity Theory lacks of the
definition
of
moving parallel frames. It seems Einstein was not sensitive enough
to
realize from the beginning that the Euclidean parallelism breaks
down
for
relatively moving observers at an angle other than moving parallel
to one
axis, say x, or when one applies successive Lorentz
transformations
at
different orientations. If you recall, the rate of angle of
distortion
is
called Thomas procession. Clearly, there remains a contradictory
Mathematical gap in SR from the beginning that can not be resolved
with a new definition of parallelism. Parallelism in Galilean or
Newtonian
Mechanics does not suffer of this problem and the Euclidean
parallelism
easily extends there. However, for SR the situation is not the
same.
According to my PHD thesis for which I was honored a PHD with the
highest
distinctions, SR may only survive parallelism by extending to six
dimensions. On Physical grounds, the relative character has to
change
to an absolute ether associated or comoving with each object,
then a
4dimensional realization may come out which quantitatively
differs
in the third and over order of v/c from SR, but the difference is
not zero.
Needless to say, I may develop Hundreds of Mathematical paradoxes when dealing with SR and with any thing that has shape and extension in more than one dimension.
But, before going farther into my papers on this issue, I do not
like
to
drag you along my definitions of Parallelism for moving frames in
a
Minkovski space for space time or for a hyperbolic velocity space.
Let me respect your definition of SR parallelism with all
the
due respect
to your Mathematical sensitivity.
Therefore, I am anxiously awaiting your rigorous definitions of parallelism for SR, to raise it to a proper Mathematical theory.
Thank you, I remain,
Sincerely Yours,
Panos Pappas
TOM PHIPPS
Subject:
Re:
Argument against STR...
Date:
Thu,
07 Oct 1999 10:42:24 0500
From:
Tom
Phipps <tephipps@pdnt.com>
To:
umberto
bartocci <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>,
Dear Umberto and George,
George advised me not to disseminate the attachment, and I judge this advice to be very good  particularly because its apparently anticlerical tone might be misinterpreted. However, it seems to me that the exchange between you two in regard to George's very compact mathematical argument has reached a near impasse, so it may not be inappropriate to throw in an entirely different kind of criticism  one of a more physical sort. Unfortunately, we are as far as ever from the shiny new crucial experiment Umberto speaks of, which is like the holy grail of SRT criticism. I am afraid I do not believe in this grail. There is in my opinion nothing but common sense (what I call plausibility) to save mankind from another thousandyear Ptolemaic episode. Common sense has now been thoroughly discredited among scientists, the new allpowerful priesthood.
With best wishes,
Tom.
A Bartocci Derby Entry
George Galeczki has called attention on the Internet to a
challenge
from Professor U. Bartocci to relativity dissidents to "agree upon
a short
and efficient argument against SRT." This is a praiseworthy
proposal.
I hope others will respond. George’s own entry in this
contest is
purely mathematical and so short as to be possibly not convincing
to all.
I have for many years looked for an argument of the kind Bartocci
has requested
and have not found it. Similarly I have found no argument
that would
dissuade a Christian from believing in Virgin birth … though it be
rather
easy to dissuade a Buddhist. Simple physical plausibility
will serve
for the latter. I should like to offer here my own entry in
this
Derby, modestly aimed at Buddhists in the sense of being based
solely on
physical plausibility, without reference to mathematics.
In his 1905 paper initiating SRT, Einstein defined an inertial
system
as one in which Newton’s laws (in their simplest form) hold at low
speeds.
He considered a "stationary" inertial system K in which lengths
were calibrated
and clocks synchronized according to a specified procedure.
Then,
with axis calibration of an initially stationary second
system
similarly established, he "set into motion" that second system
(along the
direction of the shared xaxes). He gave no details, but
presumably
this setting into motion was such as to maintain the
axes in
a strainfree (unstressed) state, in order not to spoil the length
calibration.
With the help of two postulates, he then performed what has been
generally
accepted as a logical deduction of the Lorentz transformation
equations.
The latter implied the necessity of a universal physical Lorentz
contraction
of extended structures in the direction of their relative
motion.
(Later this contraction proved to be not universal in the case of
rotary
motion – but that [Ehrenfest paradox] is not the horse I wish to
beat here.
Also the deduced transformation failed to possess group properties
in more
than one spatial dimension, but that is a horse of still another
color.)
Let us examine with some care the assumed process of "setting into
motion." Consider the xaxis of or a meter stick
parallel
to it. The meter stick or axis, considered as an extended
physical
structure, may be idealized in SRT terms as "Born rigid" – that
is, as
undergoing always precisely the length change specified by the
Lorentz
contraction formula. (A classically rigid body would not
undergo
any length change under acceleration. But SRT theorists have
ruled
such an idealization impermissible.) The meter stick, then,
is at
rest in , is Born rigid, and is at all times
stressstrainfree;
hence (so goes the story) it undergoes Lorentz contraction
as
is accelerated. Now, acceleration is represented in a
Minkowski diagram
as worldline curvature. So, we see that as
accelerates
the worldlines of the front and back ends of the meter stick at
rest there
must curve … and in fact must curve differently. That is,
the back
end worldline must curve forward more sharply than the front end
worldline,
in order that the back end may begin to "catch up" with the front
end to
produce Lorentz contraction of the meter stick as measured on any
(subsequent)
hyperplane of constant Ktime. (A diagram would help here,
but I
want to do it all with words.)
One can see this intuitively by thinking of two straight lines
initially
parallel, vertical, and separated a fixed distance D, which begin
to curve
identically in their common plane at the same height (same
Ktime).
A horizontal plane intersecting those identically curving lines at
any
greater height (later Ktime) will intersect two points that are
exactly
the distance D apart. Consequently, if a "Lorentz
contraction" of
D is to occur (and to be measurable in the initial rest system K),
the
two worldlines cannot curve identically.
Now worldline curvature is a graphical representation of
massparticle
response to force application … so differential curvature implies
differential
force application: More force must be applied to the back of
the
meter stick than to the front. And this must be true at all
instants,
beginning from rest. Thus in SRT in order to keep the meter
stick
stressstrainfree at all times, while setting into
motion,
it is necessary to apply different forces at front and back.
Whereas,
in Newton’s physics, to keep the meter stick stressstainfree it
is necessary
to apply the same forces front and back. Since both of the
foregoing
statements apply to the initial state of rest, which (zerospeed
limit)
is the state in which Newton’s physics is generally supposed by
SRT supporters
to coincide with SRT physics, it follows that there is a logical
inconsistency.
If, classically, you want to accelerate an extended structure
while keeping
it continually stressfree, you must apply identical forces to all
particles
of the structure. If, classically, you want to stress that
structure
you must apply different forces, as required by SRT.
So Newton says the meter stick, accelerated according to the SRT
prescription,
becomes stressed and thus ceases to be a fiducial standard of
length.
From the first instant of acceleration of it ceases to
be a
metric standard for Newtonian physics, but remains one for SRT
physics.
How do we determine just how much more force to apply to the back
than
to the front in order to keep the meter stick a metric standard
according
to SRT? There is no "natural" operational prescription, no
way to
"let nature take its course." We must aid nature by using a
theoretical
formula … and, if we fail to follow that exact formula for
differential
force application, the standard becomes stressed and ceases to be
a standard.
Where does all that fall on your personal plausibility
scale? (On
mine it is less plausible than Santa Claus, but more so than the
tooth
fairy.) Moreover, the circularity (involved in deducing the
Lorentz
contraction formula from a "setting into motion" process that
relies on
operational application of that very same contraction formula)
will not
be lost upon such critics as happen to be fanatics for logic.
And what does Newton know about the Newtonian limit?
Nothing,
according to SRT believers (contrary to Einstein’s 1905
presumption mentioned
at the outset). Thus amended, it’s an airtight belief
system – circular
(like the wheel in a wheel, way in the middle of the air), to be
sure,
but airtight. You, too, can enjoy the warmth of shared
faith at
just one small price of admission: You must check any
firearms, Occam’s
razor, and your personal regard for physical plausibility at the
church
door.
Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.
908 South Busey Avenue
Urbana, Illinois 61801
U.S.A.
GIANFRANCO SPAVIERI
Subject: Re: Per parlare un po' di fisica...
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 08:53:52 0400
From: spavieri <spavieri@ciens.ula.ve>
To: bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it
Carissimo Bartocci, grazie per il tuo
messaggio e
applausi per la tua iniziativa.
I send you a preliminary answer including my comment
on
the specific questions on Selleri. If necessary, I may be able to
answer
to other details after the holidays when I will reread more
carefully
your attachments.
Concerning your questionary, I agree almost
completely
with your and Josef's position: special relativity (SR) can be
doomed only
by experiments. Although I share your emotional views, I do not
agree completely
with you and Josef in that one could say that SR is not
understandable.
If the SR postulates are accepted, I and many other more
specialized physicists
believe that SR is understandable, at least within the limits of
rationality.
I myself have solved many difficult "paradoxes." However, I know
that there
are still paradoxes that have not been solved. Thus, Josef's
argument,
for much that one can share his view, is not sufficient to be
accepted
by the scientific community as disproving SR. Although
mathematical internal
coherence is generally accepted, as well known, one of the weak
physical
and intuitive points of SR is the difficulty to describe the same
physical
reality in different moving frames (paradoxes). Thus, I believe
that what
seems to be irrational, unacceptable or even not understandable to
many
people is the physical world described by SR rather than the
internal coherence
of SR itself. As far as I know, conceptually, SR looks weak
because, as
claimed by many people, it is difficult, and for some even
conceptually
impossible, to measure the oneway speed of light. I believe that
the related
problem of clock synchronization is still a confused and unclear
issue
in the literature. These facts suggest that, contrary to general
belief,
SR may not describe properly nature and one should look for
experiments
to check the postulates of SR. Obviously, the experiments should
concentrate
where paradoxical situations arise. In conclusion, although I will
certainly
not put my hand on fire for SR, I agree with you that many
criticisms made
to SR are unjustified.
Question 1 for you: Now, since we all agree that SR can be doomed by experiments, do you know of any experiment that does it?
Concerning experimental tests of SR, Cornille claims that his TroutonNoble experiment, which he repeated many times, gives nonnull result. What do you think about that? Is this not an experiment disproving SR? Please, let me know.
Cari saluti dal tuo Gianfranco Spavieri
Address: Apartado 32,
La Hechicera
Merida, 5101Venezuela
Fax:5874401286
Email: spavieri@ciens.ula.ve
PARI SPOLTER
Subject: Re: Inquiry...
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 17:28:16 0700
From: "0rbpublishing" <orbpublishing@email.msn.com>
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
To: "umberto bartocci" <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>,
Dear Professor Umberto Bartocci,
Thank you for your email of August 9.
I believe that the best argument against SRT is that Einstein's
second
postulate, stating that c ± v = c is contradicted by the
fact
that v can be
experimentally determined by the Doppler effect. Michelson and
Morley
measured the distance. They did not measure a change in the
wavelength.
Numerous experiments have shown that the transmission time of
electromagnetic radiation is constant, over a wide range of
wavelengths,
as determined by the product of wavelength and frequency. This,
however,
does not mean that the velocity of the photon is constant, since a
photon
does not travel in a straight line, and it cannot explain the fact
that
the radiations of shorter wavelengths have more energy than the
electromagnetic
radiations of longer wavelengths, even though the transmission
time is
the same for both.
The equation for the phase shift of a rotating interferometer, used in Sagnac, can be derived from the Doppler effect. See Max Dresden and Chen Ning Yang, "Phase Shift in a Rotating Neutron or Optical Interferometer," Physical Review D20 (1979): pp. 18461848. Sagnac was an ardent opponent of the theory of relativity.
Dufour and Prunier
A. Dufour et F. Prunier, "Sur un
déplacement
de franges enregistré sur
une plateforme en
rotation
uniform," Le Journal de Physique et le
Radium, 8th series, 3 (1942): pp. 153162.
repeated Sagnac experiment with several modifications of the
instrument
and observed displacement of the fringes whether the light source
and the
camera were rotating with the interferometer or were fixed in the
laboratory
frame, thus refuting the relativists' arguments to explain the
Sagnac effect.
I have discussed some serious flaws in the special and general theories of relativity in chapters 2 & 3 of my book GRAVITATIONAL FORCE OF THE SUN. There is an extensive survey of the literature, with references to numerous articles and books by many authors who have criticized the relativity theories. Information about Gravitational Force of the Sun is available at the Amazon.com site. A biography of the author is in Contemporary Authors.
With best regards,
Pari Spolter
Orb Publishing Company
11862 Balboa blvd. # 182
Granada Hills, CA 913442753
USA
Phone: (818) 3632003
Fax: (818) 3636965
Email: Orbpublishing@msn.com
THEO THEOCHARIS
Dear Umberto,
Thanks once again for the splendid hospitality at Perugia 1989. I am very sorry that I could not come to Bologna 1999. I am sending you the enclosed paper "A Physicist Experiments With Physical Studies" for the Proceedings.
Regarding your debate with Wesley, I am inclined to agree with Wesley. A proper scientific theory must start by assuming a one and only nature for light, electrons, etc. Then from this starting assumption derive formulas for, say, the Doppler and aberration effects. Relativity never does this, therefore it is not a proper scientific theory. The end formulae that it produces (by using arbitrary procedures (for example: by jumping from wave to particle and vice versa) so as to arrive at the known end result) are mere rulesofthumb which (sometimes) seem to work, almost like the SantaClaus theory of Christmas gifts (always) seems to work. Relativity thus having grown to be a huge ocean of confusion, there is no simple purely mathematical contradiction that will decisively impress a newcomer. The actual best argument that I have been using in my 22year sad experience from my struggle is (as I explained in my "Problems With Galileo" Letter published in Nature in May 1993, and also in the enclosed paper "A Physicist Experiments With Physical Studies") this: Einstein rejected heliocentrism and adopted a position which is very close to the position of the Vatican Inquisition that condemned Galileo.
A simple, obvious, and stark mathematical difficulty in quantum electrodynamics was identified by Dirac many decades ago and you will find it in the Section "A Physicist Experiments With Mathematical Studies" of the enclosed paper "A Physicist Experiments With Physical Studies".
Also enclosed is my (unpublished) book DisInventing Certainty which makes all the above (and many more) arguments at some length and in some detail. In fact CHAPTER VI "Translation and rotation sensors" and CHAPTER VII "The optical translational velocimeter" (and maybe other sections) are eminently suitable for the Bologna 1999 Proceedings, and (space permitting) you may like to use them as separate articles.
Yours sincerely
28 August 1999
Theo Theocharis
200A Merton Road,
London SW18 5SW
England.
Email: theotheocharis@hotmail.com
01818706191
SVETLANA TOLCHEL’NIKOVAMURRI
Subject: Re:
request
Date:
Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:50:14 +0400
From:
"M. Chubey" <mchubey@gao.spb.ru>
To:
"Umberto Bartocci" <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>
Dear Umberto,
In your last email letter of Aug. 10 there was no
information
whether you received my letter with the answer to your questions
about
stellar
aberration or not. This is the third mail I am sending to you
after
Bologna.
In answer to your mail of Aug.10 I must say, that I totally agree
with
the
words by Wesley, which you quoted. Although there is no word
«horrendous»
in my English dictionary, so I imagine he means «
horrific»
or «horrible». [...]
Regards.
Yours
most sincerely. Svetlana.
JAMES PAUL WESLEY
3 November 1998
Dear Umberto,
Thanks for your letter of 28 October 1998.
It is, indeed, an iksome chore to write in a foreign language; but English has become, perhaps unfortunately, the international language, especially in science and technology. Relax and do not worry about any errors you might make: as no ono cares in English.
As has been empirically proven by Roemer, Bradley. Sagnac,
MichelsonGale,
Conklin and Marinov the observed oneway velocity of energy
propagation
of light is in fact variable, depending on the absolute velocity
of the
observer v, such that c* = c  v , where c is the oneway
velocity
of the energy propagation of light relative to absolute space or
the stationary
luminiferous ether. ‘Special relativity’, denying such obvious
simple empirical
facts, is just silly! [...]
Obviously "special relativity" is nonsense, as has been thorougly
and
amply demonstrated by countless experiments (such as Marinov’s
experiments
using the anisotropy of the velocity of light to measure the
absolute velocity
of the closed laboratory)!! [...]
The nature of light propagation is rather well understood 
although
sometimes it is involved (see my ADVANCED FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS
book). The
velocity of the lab relative to the stationary luminiferous ether
is not
"rather disputable". It has been firmly established by Sagnac,
Marinov,
MichelsonGale, Conklin and indirectly by MonsteinWesley (reprint
enclosed).
The absolute velocity of the lab is about 320 km/s in a direction
indicated
in the enclosed reprint. You should at least study Marinov’s
brilliant
"coupled mirrors" experiment...
27 March 1999
Dear Umberto,
Thanks for your letter of 8 March with the Announcement of the
Bologna
Conference and your two papers.
In the Announcement I would like to take exception to the claim
that
the "majority" of physicists still believe in "special
relativity". According
to my actual pole, sampling over 100 physicists beliefs, less than
5 percent
still believe in "special relativity". Why discuss a dead issue?
Why beat
a dead horse?
Enclosed is my one page comment against ether theories.
In your letter you make the strange claim that "special
relativity"
can explain the "old" stuff, the "empirical facts", of Roemer,
Bradley,
Sagnac, etc.  whereas, in fact, "special relativity" flatly and
explicitly
contradicts these facts!
The many measurements of the absolute velocity of the solar
system,
and thus the Earth, indicate an absolute velocity of over 300
km/s. Slowly
varying (or static) effects are adequately expalined without
reference
to absolute space or absolute velocity. Since most of the effects
that
do depend on the basolute velocity of the Earth are second order
v^2/c^2 10^6 ; and since no one looks for these effects (the
Monstein
Wesley experiment is an exception); these effects are generaly
simply ignored.
The first order of v/c 10^3 electrodynamic effects
have been
observed by Roemcr, Bradley, Sagnac, Conk1in, Marinov, etc. etc.
And, of
courrse, the Maxwell theory is wrong in general for many reasons,
as discussed
in my ADVANCED FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS
book, as well as in my CLASSICAL QUANTUM THEORY book. I enclosed
still
another empirical example of the failure of the Mxwell theory.
[...]
The failure of the Maxwell theory in so many ways is already ample
proof of the failure of the "Lorentz transformation" or "Lorentz
invariance"
as you say. No extra experiment is needed  although welcome...
IS THERE AN ETHER?
Generally ether theories are simply preposterous fantasies. The vacuum is supposed te be filled with all sort of real or imaginary particles, fluids, solids, or fields with all sort of real or imaginary properties governed by all sort of real or imaginary laws. No two believers in an ether ever believe in the same ether. Although empty space or a vacuum reveals no physical properties; ethers are supposed to explain any end everything. There being no evidence for nothing, ether theorist never have to run the risk of being proved wrong.
Plato believed in a spacefilling fluid plenum. Newton, not liking actionatadistance, speculated that the inward flow of a fluid produced gravitational attraction. Leibniz had his monads. Maxwell believed in a super elastic solid ether for light propagation. Dirac invented an ether with particles and antiparticles that could have negative kinetic energies. He was insanely convinced that he "discovered" the positron. Etc. Etc.
Despite the absurdities of all of these proposed ethers, a
preferred
absolute rest frame pervading all space exists. This absolute
space makes
its presence known locally and instantaneously. The oneway
velocity of
energy propagation of light is c with respect to absolute space.
The fixed
celestial sphere implies a universal cosmological limit velocity
measured
with respect to absolute space. The frame in which the 2.7°K
cosmic
background is isotropic defines absolute space. The unique gamma
factor,
g = 1/Ö1v^2/c^2, in neomechanics reveals a unique particle
velocity
v measured with respect to absolute space. The inertial force,
mass times
acceleration, defines an absolute nonaccelerating frame identical
to the
fixed celestial sphere. Is there something physical (an ether),
that is
at rest, and that pervades all space to account for absolute
space?
Moreover, does the fact that physical fields can be defined, such
as
the gravitational field or the electric field, at a point in
absolute space,
independent of any original source or final sink, mean that the
point in
absolute space contains something physical (an ether) that
registers these
fields?
Perhaps there is an ether; but there is no empirical evidence.
4 July 1999
Dear Umberto,
Thanks for your letter of 5 June 1999 with the enclosed material.
Contrary to your apparent belief, "special relativity" presents
obvious
horrendous mathematical contradictions and errors, as pointed out
by thousands
of individuals since 1905 onward. But even worse, correct
mathematical
manipulations of false physical premises, that contradict
empirical fact
(such as the claimed constancy of the velocity of light
independent of
the velocity of the observer) does not mean that the correct
mathematical
conclusions are correct physical conclusions. [...]
I find your poster to malign Marinov highly improper. You cannot
take
the highly emotional, slanted, biased, and unfounded opinions of
"special
relativity’’ fanatics, such as Bergmann, Maddox, Feshbach, and
editors
of orthodox journals to prove that Marinov was wrong! You cannot
cite the
opinions of Cardinals of the Catholic Church to prove that atheism
is wrong.
After all, ‘‘special relativity" is a religion having nothing to
do wit
science (except for its totaly unwarranted claims).
Your first paper entitled "About Bradley’s aberration" involves
complicated
ad hoc notions about an ether. It does not interest me. One can
explain
anything at all once one introduces an arbitrary ad hoc personal
"ether".
There are as many different "ethers" proposed as there are authors
proposing
them.
In your second paper entitled "About Roemer observations" you
insist
that "special relativity" with its mystical, never confirmed "time
dilation"
be considered seriously. Why? Such ad hoc nonsense without any
firm empirical
basis needs to be ignored!...
4 August 1999
Dear Umberto,
Thanks for your recent letters and the enclosures.
Unfortunately I can not share your highly emotional conviction that "special relativity"’is "true". You sound as though you have "seen the light" and you now have "religion"! There are no possible mathematical, logical, nor experimental arguments that I might employ to make you change your mind. You even malign our poor honest deceased friend Marinov, because his results are unpleasant for you. You conveniently ignore the clever experimental strategy that permitted Marinov to readily exceed Zeeman’s accuracy! And now you start to attack me by accusing me of not answering your questions.
You simply ignore essentially everything that is
relevant
regarding the absurdity of "special relativity". You ignore the
fact that
"special relativity" is a mathematical nightmare: The Lorentz
transformation
does not even form a group in 3 space and 1 time dimension, as it
must
to be a legitimate representation of spacetime! And how is it
that twins
after fast round trips are each younger than the other? You ignore
the
fact that "special relativity" postulates, contrary to
observational fact,
that the observer always sees the oneway velocity of ligth as
having the
constant value c.
So in concltision, let us agree not to communicate
any
further on the subject of "special relativity". Everything has
already
been said a thonsand times over by hundreds, if not thousands, of
authors
over almost 1000 years. Nothing further need be said.
with
best regards
copy to Galeczki
17 September 1999
Dear Umberto.
Thanks for your letter dated 2 August 1999, which arrived here
yesterday.
Sorry if I have misunderstood you. I thought you were
renouncing your former beliefs to now embrace "special
relativity".
I disagree with your claim that "there are many
misunderstandings
about relativistic concepts in our antirelativistic group". The
misunderstandings
that I am aware of are in the prorelativistic group.
Your recent papers presenting prorelativistic
arguments
are, of course, flagrantly "counter productive for our cause
against Einstein’s
approach to physics". Such arguments have already been presented,
discussed,
and rebutted numerous times in the literature over the last 94
years. There
is no need to publicize such arguments today. Everytime you
present or
mention any prorelativity arguments, or the word "Einstein", as
in your
papers, you are automatically giving support to "special
relativity" as
a theory worthy of serious consideration. Total silence along with
total
rejection is the only strategy that can be used today to bring the
silly
"special relativity" craze to its final end!
Your claim in your paper "Most common
misunderstandings..."
that "special relativity" can explain observations is ridicolous.
For example,
in order to explain the observed behavior of light you find it
necessary
to introduce a preferred frame of reference, that you call
incorrectly
"an inertial frame" (a frame with zero absolute acceleration)
instead of
calling it "absolute space" or the frame of the fixed luminiferous
ether
(a frame with zero absolute velocity), which automatically
contradicts
"special relativity" from the very outset. You misrepresent
"special relativity".
Only relative frames are admissible in "special relativity".
Thus for the case of the Bradley’s aberration angle a
for stars viewed 90° to the ecliptic you accept the formula
tg(a) =
v/(cÖ1v^2/c^2), where v is the velocity of the Earth
relative to
the Sun and the fixed stars, that establishes a preferred
reference rame!
To be consistent with "special relativity" only the relative
velocity u
between the source star and the Earth can be used. [...]
"Special relativity" thus predicts that Bradley’s aberration angle
is different for different stars. For faster stars relative to the
Earth
the aberration circle should be larger  a readily observable
effect for
some distant galaxies. No such effect is observed! It is your own
drastic
"misunderstanding" of "special relativity" that is not helping
"this sacrosanct
fight" against "speial relativity".
I hope you can appreciate why I thought that you had
"seen
the light" and accepted "special relativity" as correct after all.
Only
a true believer could put forward such totally inadequate weak
superficial
arguments in favor of "special relativity" as you have done. [...]
Moreover, why do you wish to make the prorelativity
assertion
that "the greatest majority of physicists" accept "special
relativty"?
I find that almost no physicist believes in "special relativity"
anymore.
For example, in my poll of 100 senior physicists not one believed
in "special
relativity". Generally it is only uneducated nonphysicists who
still believe.
If you are sincerely against "special relativity", I
strongly
recommend that you cease writing prorelativity papers and that
you write
proabsolute spacetime papers and simply ignore "special
relativity" altogether!...
Weiherdammstrasse 24
78176 Blumberg  Germany
Tel.: 07702658