Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analysis

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analysis

Unread post by viscount aero » Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:02 am

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/RelativityDebates.htm/

Relativity skeptics
This page has links to articles and websites questioning Einstein's theory of relativity (SR and GR)
pdf files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or other pdf reader to view - free download here http://www.adobe.com

The ephysics.fileave.com files can also be found in the physics folder at my 4shared.com account here in case the fileden.com account exceeds the 24 hour download limit

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Louis Essen, D.Sc., F.R.S., has spent a lifetime working at the NPL on the measurement of time and frequency. He built the first caesium clock in 1955 and determined the velocity of light by cavity resonator, in the process showing that Michelson's value was 17km/s low. In 1959, he was awarded the Popov Gold Medal of the USSR Academy of Sciences and also the OBE.

Essen says that Einstein's theory of relativity is full of flaws and logical inconsistancies. Check out his 1978 article in Wireless World here:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/ ... p44-45.pdf (412 KB pdf file) Alternate link: http://www.filesnack.com/files/cdtnw5ic

His article "RELATIVITY - joke or swindle?" in Electronics & Wireless World, p. 126-127, February 1988 is here http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm

The reference listed at the bottom of this article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Essen
Essen, L. (1971) The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis, Oxford University Press (Oxford science research papers, 5). , booklet in which he questioned the modern interpretation of the special theory of relativity.
has been uploaded here: http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/ ... -Essen.pdf (2.11MB pdf file)
Alternate link: http://www.filesnack.com/files/ctpioas9
(for large pdf files its best to download them by right clicking on the link, click save "target as", or "save file as" depending on the browser, and then viewing after the file has been downloaded)
(if the 24 hr account limit is exceeded try again later, alternatively, you can download a copy of the article from the physics/Essen folder here: http://www.4shared.com/dir/2077108/ab6c ... aring.html)

More about Essen http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord (works best in Internet Explorer)

Essen's views on Relativity http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html

marengo
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:40 am

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by marengo » Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:22 am

It is not enough to criticise Einstein's Special theory of Relativity. Many people have done that and it is so easy to do.
The hard part is producing the correct theory. That I have done. It is the Aether Theory of Relativity. The theory is identical in its predictions to Einstein's theory for inertial bodies but also applies to REAL bodies (that is bodies with any degree of acceleration). Einstein's theory was constructed from inertial frames and so applies ONLY to inertial bodies (if that).
You may find the Aether theory on my website www.aetherpages.com.
http://www.aetherpages.com
A series of scientific papers on the new Aether physics.

marengo
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:40 am

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by marengo » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:51 am

I welcome comments on my YouTube animation of an experiment which clearly show that the Aether Theory of Relativity beats Einstein's theory. The YouTube address is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igEaknVh3ig.
http://www.aetherpages.com
A series of scientific papers on the new Aether physics.

User avatar
D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by D_Archer » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:16 am

I read the news article about Essen, his longer paper still to do.

I find it fascinating to find critical analysis of Einstein that actually makes sense.

Kind regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

marengo
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:40 am

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by marengo » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:42 am

I have not read Essen, Simply because showing Einstein's relativity to be false is child's play.

let me give you some reasons.
Einstein envisaged a Universe of inertial reference frames (IRFs) in which the laws of physics are identical.
How do IRFs exist? How do we detect them? How do we know if we are in one? How do the laws of physics operate in them? These questions are all unanswered.

Einstein assumes that an inertial body can exist within an IRF. How? And what determines the dimensions of the IRF? Is it the dimensions of the inertial body and if so there is a circular argument here. IRFs can exist without inertial bodies but then need the dimensions of the body to determine the dimensions of the iRF.

But then no body is inertial for that means zero acceleration and it is impossible to attain zero acceleration.
Einstein's theory transforms the dimensions from one theoretical IRF to another. Possibly it may do the same for inertial bodies (if they existed, which they dont).

I repeat what I said before. It is easy to show that Einstein's theory is rubbish. The difficulty is in finding the right theory. You may find that on www.aetherpages.com.
http://www.aetherpages.com
A series of scientific papers on the new Aether physics.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by viscount aero » Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:49 pm

marengo wrote:I have not read Essen, Simply because showing Einstein's relativity to be false is child's play.

let me give you some reasons...
:roll:

That wasn't the point of D_Archer's post. He remarked positively about the Essen paper in that he found "it fascinating to find critical analysis of Einstein that actually makes sense." What may be mere "child's play" to you may not make sense to another unless it is put them in a way they can comprehend.

marengo
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:40 am

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by marengo » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:25 am

viscount aero
I just thought I would give a few obvious reasons why Einstein's relativity is so unbelievable. Possibly I may have helped some readers to be more clear in their opinion on that topic.

But, as I have said many times; finding fault with Einstein's relativity is easy. Finding the correct theory is the hard bit.
I offer the Aether Theory of Relativity which can be found on my website www.aetherpages.com.

The predictions of the Aether theory and Einstein;s theory are IDENTICAL for inertial bodies.
BUT they differ for real accelerating bodies, some times to a large degree.
I would appreciate comments on that point.
http://www.aetherpages.com
A series of scientific papers on the new Aether physics.

Michael V
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by Michael V » Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:24 pm

marengo,

The most obvious problem you face, is that most, if not all of the "predictions" of Einsteinian relativity are completely fallacious. So, if your theory comes to the same conclusions, then clearly there is something amiss with Your theory. You just need to consider in more detail how the universe actually operates, not how other theorists have interpreted and concluded that it operates.

That said, your point about the non-existence of "inertial frames" is quite correct.

However, if you wish to persist with your present scheme, then I have a friendly criticism for you to consider. I have found your style of writing on your website to be quite unclear, with leaps of reasoning that are not fully explained. I suspect in large part that may be due to the laundry list of assumptions that you utilise. I think perhaps you need to be more long winded in your explanations, which might help you to reach a wider audience.


Michael

Michael V
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by Michael V » Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:36 pm

viscount aero,

Thanks for the thread/links, I found Essen's insights enjoyable and a useful reference point.

I would be grateful of any more links/info that you may have found with regards to criticism/scepticism of Special Relativity Theory. I fear that religious superstitions of this sort are not easily overcome by logical scientific argument, but it is still worth collecting the evidence nonetheless.


Michael

marengo
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:40 am

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by marengo » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:04 am

Michael V
You state that Einstein's predictions by Special relativity are fallacious. I do not accept that. Please provide evidence to support your claim.

Further more I would be most grateful if you would point out to me the most egregious leap of reasoning that you have discovered in my website papers at www.aetherpages.com., of which you complain. If I agree I will endeavor to correct it.
http://www.aetherpages.com
A series of scientific papers on the new Aether physics.

Michael V
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by Michael V » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:43 am

marengo,

The logic of Newton's First Law of Motion is indisputable. Therefore, we must in principle agree with it, at least conceptually. However, in the real physically universe of matter (i.e. electrons and protons) and non-matter (gravity, light, electromagnetism) it should be obvious enough to all who care to look and spend time thinking appropriately that there cannot be a single instance of matter in the entire (infinite) universe that is at rest or in a state of uniform motion. In other words all matter is in a state of acceleration and Newton's First Law does not and can not apply to real matter in the real physical universe. This being the case, the entire presuppositional concept of "Inertial Reference Frames" is rendered invalid and there is no basis for Einstein's Special Relativity Theory to begin with.
Of course, this is not the complete extent of the flaws and inconsistencies with that theory and I refer you to the writings of Mr Essen and others.

Also, a theorist known to you said once (or twice):
....finding fault with Einstein's relativity is easy[\quote]
and
But then no body is inertial for that means zero acceleration and it is impossible to attain zero acceleration.
Einstein's theory transforms the dimensions from one theoretical IRF to another. Possibly it may do the same for inertial bodies (if they existed, which they dont).[\quote]
and
It is easy to show that Einstein's theory is rubbish.
and
The predictions of the Aether theory and Einstein;s theory are IDENTICAL for inertial bodies.
BUT they differ for real accelerating bodies, some times to a large degree.
So "Aether Theory" apparently makes predictions for inertial bodies that "Aether Theory" or at least "Aether Theorists" say do not exist.
marengo wrote:You state that Einstein's predictions by Special relativity are fallacious. I do not accept that.
You must of course accept what you feel to be reasonable and logically consistent.


Michael

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by viscount aero » Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:02 pm

marengo wrote:viscount aero
I just thought I would give a few obvious reasons why Einstein's relativity is so unbelievable. Possibly I may have helped some readers to be more clear in their opinion on that topic.

But, as I have said many times; finding fault with Einstein's relativity is easy. Finding the correct theory is the hard bit.
I offer the Aether Theory of Relativity which can be found on my website http://www.aetherpages.com.

The predictions of the Aether theory and Einstein;s theory are IDENTICAL for inertial bodies.
BUT they differ for real accelerating bodies, some times to a large degree.
I would appreciate comments on that point.
Marengo, I understand you are enthused about your Aether Pages affair. Perhaps allow for others to explore a foundational rebuttal on their own preponderance first before forcing Aether theory upon someone. One must crawl before they can walk. An initial baseline of the fundamentals of Relativity are first required in order to then begin understanding why these fundamentals can be rebutted and refuted. One need not suddenly jump to another theory, such as Aether, in order to find contradictions or nonsense in the original theory. Do you know what I am saying? I think you're a bit too overbearing in your push to explain everything right away with Aether. Maybe cool down? Maybe point out the simple "child's play" first without right away insisting that one look at the Aether Pages?

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by viscount aero » Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:09 pm

Michael V wrote:viscount aero,

Thanks for the thread/links, I found Essen's insights enjoyable and a useful reference point.

I would be grateful of any more links/info that you may have found with regards to criticism/scepticism of Special Relativity Theory. I fear that religious superstitions of this sort are not easily overcome by logical scientific argument, but it is still worth collecting the evidence nonetheless.


Michael
Michael, my pleasure. I have a goodies bag of stuff that may be fun for you ;)

A lot of it will be a remedial/review in your case but it's good stuff to revisit. I cannot guarantee that all of the links are still active but you can wade through this cornucopia of information and enjoy the simple pleasure of seeking alternative knowledge!

---------------

Historical Papers. Note Builder's solution.

1. Geoffrey Builder (1957) Ether and Relativity.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Historical_Papers.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Einstein's Allies and Enemies: Debating Relativity in Germany, 1916-1920
by David E. Rowe
Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science vol. 251

This is an excellent article. It discusses anti-relativists in Germany in 1916-1920. One of them, Ernst Gehrcke gives evidence that Einstein stole Paul Gerber's work from 1898 by showing that "Gerber had obtained precisely the same formula Einstein had derived using general relativity" and the fact that "Gerber's publication is discussed in Mach's Mechanik (Mach, 1904, 201), and Einstein demonstrated his precise knowledge of the contents of this well-known book in his recent obiturary of Mach" (see pages 245-246 of the article).

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/ ... nemies.pdf (2.5 MB pdf file)
Alternate link: http://www.filesnack.com/files/ctn5r0am

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Herbert Dingle was correct by Harry Ricker
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/ ... orrect.pdf (158 KB)


You can download a copy of Dingle's book "Science at the Crossroads" here
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/02/cha ... ecial.html
Must read arguments against relativity by modern professors, engineers and others
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/quest.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his 1951 article in Nature, Paul Dirac discusses a prefered frame of reference, applies quantum mechanics to the aether and says "with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether". From various writing of his it appears that Dirac doesn't seem to see the aether theory and Einstein�s relativity theory as in conflict with each other.

You can download a copy of the article here
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/ ... 06-907.pdf (210 KB)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of E. W. Silvertooth's articles appears in Electronics and Wireless World May 1989 and gives the earth's velocity in one experiment as 378 km/s towards the constellation of Leo.

Here's the article.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/ ... 37-438.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Download Santilli's book here for free
Il Grande Grido: Ethical probe on Einsten Follower's in USA
http://www.telesio-galilei.com/ilgrandegridoedfig.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stefan Marinov is a skeptic of Einstein's relativity theory and claims to have performed experiments showing the anisotropy of the velocity of light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Marinov

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf041/sf041p18.htm

Download Marinov's book here for free
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/books.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The physics textbook that I used at the University of Maryland claimed that the Ives Stillwell experiment supported Einstein's theory of Relativity. I was surprised to find an article in a 1938 issue of Electronics which claims it supports the aether theory. I looked at a lot of Herbert Ives' papers in the Journal of the Optical Society of America and found that he always uses the term Larmor-Lorentz theory, but never mention's Einstein's theory. Ives is known to be a supporter of the aether theory.

One interpretation of the Ives Stillwell Experiment
Electronics June 1938 page 13
Electronics June 1938 page 14
Electronics June 1938 page 15

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found this interesting email here http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/16133.htm

The Deception Deepens. Falsification of experimental results relating to the Theory of Relativity.

From Al Kelly to Ivor Catt.

Hi Ivor,

I am just satisfied that I published in detail the 'cooked' results of H
& K in 1996 in Monograph No 3 of the Institution of Engineers of Ireland.
Anything I emailed to you and others really is describing what is in that
paper. A later paper on the same subject which will reach a wider
audience is coming out in Phys Ess. in Dec 2000 (in press and late) .
Quoting any emails I sent to you would merely prolong the site you are
forming. The abstract I sent to you of the Phys Ess. paper would be
enough for the reader I suggest.

I repeat it here :-

Abstract. The original test results were not published by Hafele &
Keating. In their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were
radically different from the actual test results which are here published
for the first time. An analysis of the real data shows that no credence
can be given to the conclusions of Hafele & Keating.
Good Hunting,

Al Kelly, 10june01

----- Original Message -----

From: ic <ic@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>

To: > <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>

Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 12:06 AM

Subject: draft es/rel scandal


The reference is on www.btinternet.com/~time.lord in the bibliography. It
is: Atomic Clocks Coming and Going, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 14, 46 (1977)

----- Original Message -----

From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk

To: Al Kelly <agkelly@eircom.net>; mikegi <mikegi@prestige.net>
Cc: Malcolm Davidson <malcolm_davidson@sonymusic.com>;
<ray.essen@btinternet.com>; <dave@dunelmsystems.co.uk>; James Bogle
<bogles@bogletowers.fsnet.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:42 PM Subject: essen/rel
Al Kelly (et al),

This is the kind of thing I intend to put on my website. Please help me.
Ivor Catt 6june01

The Deception Deepens

"'I see nobody on the road,' said Alice.

'I only wish I had such eyes,' the king remarked in a fretful tone. 'To be
able to see Nobody! And at that distance, too! Why, it's as much as I can
do to see real people, by this light!'"

Louis Carroll, "Through the Looking- Glass and what Alice found there".
"Pathological science often depends on experiments at the threshold of
detectability, or at the lowest margins of statistical significance. The
claims frequently emerge from a body of data that is selectively
incomplete;
wishful researchers unconsciously discard enough 'bad' data to make the
remaining 'good' points look important. That the measurements are at the
very threshold of sensitivity is an advantage, not an obstacle: data that
don't fit the theory are explained away; those they fit are lovingly
retained. - Peter Huber, "Galileo's Revenge", 1991, p27.

"No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I
persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects. .... .... the
continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a
rational extension of electromagnetic theory." - Louis Essen F.R.S., "Relativity and time signals", Wireless World, oct78, p44.

"The authors then proceed to make a statistical analysis of the frequency
comparisons made between the clocks, to obtain their final results. No
details of these comparisons are given, but the analysis is based on the
assumption that the frequency variations are random in nature, which
appears to be unlikely and is not in accord with my own experience.... the
experimental results given in their paper do not support these
predictons." - Louis Essen, "Atomic Clocks Coming and Going", Creation Research Society
Quarterly, 14, 46 (1977)


"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time
gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything .... the
difference between theory and experiment is disturbing."
- Hafele, Secret United States Navval Observatory internal report, 1971.
Obtained by A G Kelly two decades later under the Freedom of Information
Act.

In my article "The Conquest of Truth", Electronics and Wireless World,
jan98, I point out that all four so-called acid tests of the validity of
the Theory of Relativity are disputed. This article summarises a continuing
deception practised by the Establishment including the journal "Nature" on
a later much vaunted experiment.

The theory of Relativity states that increased velocity causes clocks to
slow down. Two aeroplanes carrying the world's most accurate were flown around the world in opposite directions, and then compared with each other and with a stationary clock. The experimental results were then falsified, and Nature and other journals wrongly concluded that Relativity had been experimentally verified. Louis Essen, who became Fellow of the
Royal Society in honour of his achievement in developing these (caesium)
clocks, was prevented from publishing his caveat, that the clocks were
less accurate than claimed.

Decades later, under the Freedom of Information Act, Dr. A G Kelly obtained the raw data from the experiments, which showed that the wrong conclusion had been published. Further, he obtained an internal memo by one of the authors a year earlier, when the author had written that the experiment could not lead to any valid conclusions.

Ivor Catt 8june01

Will the new editor of Nature now belatedly publish this information? - IC.

Cc Nature (Editor: Philip Campbell) via feedback@nature.com 12june01

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Farce of Physics by Bryan G. Wallace

This book discusses experiments which show inconsistencies in interplanetary radar data, how they conflict with Einstein's relativity theory and the suppression of this and other publications by the establishment.

Table of contents here http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm


Note the part here in the "Relativity Revolution" chapter:

"Two scientists were dismissed because they discovered some facts which contradicted Einstein. It is not only dangerous to speak against Einstein, but which is worse it is impossible to publish anything which might be considered as contradiction to his theory."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/FP_C6_RR.HTM

Bryan G. Wallace's paper from Spectroscopy Letters 1969 pages 361-367
The constancy of the speed of light is one of the main postulates of Special Relativity.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/ ... 61-367.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can find more articles in the physics folder here
http://www.4shared.com/dir/2077108/ab6c ... aring.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Progress in Space-Time Physics 1987
Edited by James Paul Wesley

A review of the book from Foundations of Physics, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1989
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/ ... w-1989.pdf

Progress in Space-Time Physics preface to page 35
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/ ... ace-35.pdf

pages 269-273 Book Review
Einstein's Relativity the Greatest Fallacy in the Twentieth Century
by Sharad D. Tipnis
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/ ... 69-273.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roland DeWitte

DeWitte's experiment demonstrates the anisotropy of light in the earth's frame of reference contradicting SRT.


http://www.teslaphysics.com/DeWitte/belgacom.htm

http://www.teslaphysics.com/DeWitte/index.htm

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -06-11.PDF

http://uk.geocities.com/kevinharkess/re ... wrong.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some anti-relativity forums

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/index.php

http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/

http://18040.rapidforum.com/

You can use Babelfish for translating the German in the last forum
http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr

marengo
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:40 am

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by marengo » Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:58 am

I would just like to repeat that finding fault with Einstein's Special Relativity is child's play.
Continuing to find more holes in the theory and by different authors does not move physics forward.
What is needed is the correct theory!

I have proposed a candidate, the Aether Theory of Relativity.
No-one so far has found a flaw within it. Can we therefore accept that it is the correct theory and move on.
Moving on means belief in Space to be a substantial Aether.
That will change much of Modern Physics to one degree or another.

Of course someone might still find a flaw in the Aether Theory.
The theory can be found in my papers at www.aetherpages.com.
http://www.aetherpages.com
A series of scientific papers on the new Aether physics.

Michael V
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Louis Essen: Special Theory of Relativity Critical Analy

Unread post by Michael V » Fri Sep 06, 2013 4:39 am

marengo,
No-one so far has found a flaw within it.
You accept the predictions of Einsteinian relativity as fact and say that your theory is a better explanation for those predictions. Since those predictions are fallacious, then so is any theory that makes those predictions.

Your theory contains a huge laundry list of assumptions. Occam's Razor would eat you for breakfast.

You suggest cosmological redshift is due to a change of either Euclidean distance or of the rate of time, leading to a historical variance in the speed of light. Really?. A change of distance? or a change in the rate of time?, ....really?.

You have no explanation for charge.

Your description of your aether and the mechanical relationships between "aethons" is at best vague.

Your assertion of what constitutes matter is equally vague.

Obviously, I list only some of the low hanging fruit.
Moving on means belief in Space to be a substantial Aether.
"Substantial"?, what exactly do you mean?.
Can we therefore accept that it is the correct theory and move on.
Ummm.......no!

At the same time, I do not mean to discourage you from your efforts. I fear that only the correct answers are likely to dislodge today's modern superstitions, and even then it will likely not be easy. I my opinion your theory is not "the correct", but you are free pursue your campaign as you see fit and I wish you luck.


Michael

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests