to return to the main site index.In these Web pages I plan to summarize my case for proving that Einstein's theory, whether it be his Special or General Theory of Relativity has no merit whatsoever. As can be seen from the above heading, there will be two Parts to my attack on Einstein territory. This Part I is my incursion based on a little brain-washing by propaganda or common sense, whichever viewpoint you choose to adopt. It should be enough to convince most scientifically-minded readers, but scientists can be stubborn, as history shows. Part II, now included in these web pages as LECTURE IIIb is a completely separate account, written without assuming knowledge of this Part I material, and intended to convince the experimentally-minded physicist that Einstein's theory is just plain wrong. Experiments prove it to be wrong! I will refer to experiments that were performed in accredited laboratories or observatories, the results of which the scientific world have brushed under the carpet to avoid the issues they raise.
If the reader is a cosmologist or a professor who teaches the mathematics of Einstein's theory then there may be an unshakable conviction that I cannot penetrate. That person, if willing to browse through what I have to say, may find that Part II is best read first, but Part I must not be forgotten. What I am saying will not go away. It has to be faced and I have to be proved wrong, point by point, before it can be taken for granted that I am launching myself as a misguided weapon on the Internet scene.
I will now begin my Part I discourse.
There used to be a saying in England which applied to someone who attempted to force something to fit where common sense should tell us that it is impossible. 'You cannot squeeze a pint into a half-pint pot!' Yet scientists who dominate thought in the academic community concerned with cosmology and theoretical physics believe wholeheartedly that Einstein did achieve the impossible. He managed to convince the academic theoreticians that it was possible for different observers to see space as having different forms, simply because he wanted to keep the speed of light constant relative to each and every observer, wherever that observer may be located.
Now, of course, members of that community take strength from one another, trusting that, if they have doubts, someone in their flock really understands Einstein's theory better than they do themselves. They do not want to reveal their own inability to comprehend that which their peers understand so clearly! They are semi-blind, led by the semi-blind and they lead the semi-blind! Ask yourself why, if four-space has any meaning, all the experiments which are said to present data supporting such theory present those results in the familiar units of three-space with time as a separate dimension.
The logic of the steps involved can be listed as follows:
(i) Objective: We want to put a pint in a half-pint pot.
(ii) Stage 1: Devise a mathematical way in which to transform a half-pint pot into one that appears larger on a computer screen.
(iii) Stage 2: Write a computer program which shows a graphic picture
of your half-pint of liquid being poured into that pot.
(iv) Stage 3: Run the program to enjoy the illusion and then save the
recorded images in your computer.
(v) Stage 4: Invite others to see your program running so they can
witness the pint being poured into the half-pint pot.
(vi) Stage 5: Produce a print-out summarizing what has been seen and
authenticated, in a readable version of text now using the standard
language of three-space.
(vii) Stage 6: Publish your findings as 'physics' and declare
'Eureka'.
If you really believe Einstein's theory then please tell me when we will have optical instruments and electrical measuring equipment that are calibrated to register directly as four-space measurements. Otherwise, read the following article and then tell me what, in that article, you cannot accept! It was written and published in 1986. I still await reaction and comment. Now that I am putting it on Internet, I urge you to give it your serious attention and ask yourself why the points I make are not discussed with students as part of the standard relativistic teaching. Remember that Einstein's theory is not something that has ever been proved by experiment. It is a philosophical viewpoint, a matter of opinion, just as was the hypothesis that the Earth was flat, before it was circumnavigated. However, what I am saying is not philosophy. It is the kind of science that an engineer can understand, meaning of the kind that delivers results and not just a string of mathematical symbols, but also provides design data that checks qualitatively as well as quantitatively with what is actually measured.
The following is the text of an article I wrote that appeared in the July 1986, v. 5, No. 2 issue, of 'The Toth-Maatian Review' on pp. 2475-2481. The editor of this periodical is, I believe, a disillusioned physicist who, in his retirement years, decided to run his own publishing house to give attention to opinions which were not in favour with editors of the more orthodox publications.
Note that the orbit of a planet around the Sun is elliptical in form, but the orientation of the major axis of the orbit, as judged by reference to the background of distant stars, can be seen to change very gradually. It may take tens of thousands of orbital revolutions before the major axis turns through 360 degrees, but turn it will, owing to energy transfer involved in gravitational effects within the multi-body solar system. That slow turning motion, or rather a small anomalous component thereof, is what we have in mind when referring to the anomalous perihelion advance of a planet.
The title of this 1986 article, which now follows, is:
Anyone interested in Einstein's theory of relativity usually acquires that interest by first learning that, because our Earth is moving at high speed through space and because our measurements in the laboratory seem immune from that motion, our viewpoint of physical phenomena must be specially favoured. What we see and measure seems, relative to us, to be rather special and Einstein's special theory of relativity exploits that feeling.
The problems begin when we encounter the abstraction of a four-dimensional space interwoven with a time which 'dilates' as we move faster and faster. We are sceptical, and rightly so, but we have respect for those who lead us along the path of truth. When we ask how 19th century physics coped with this basic problem we then find that Newtonian mechanics has a built-in relativistic mechanism. It gives the answer quite well by the down-to-earth physics governing our daily lives, because Newton's laws hold up if referenced on any frame of reference in steady motion. We are then guided into the problem of deciding between the action-at-a-distance effects implicit in Newton's theory and the problems of the finite propagation speed of light. The latter suggest retarded actions in an aether, but we are assured that nobody has found a way of measuring our motion in the laboratory by tests referenced on this medium and that, if we turn to Einstein for enlightenment and forget Newton, then we can forget the aether too. Our future in physics lies, we are told, not in action-at-a-distance, but in Einstein's field theory and its distorted space-time metric.
Should we still drag our feet, and perhaps the aether along with us, then we are dealt the 'coup de grace' to put us out of our misery. Einstein's theory predicted something that lies outside Newton's world. Einstein obtained an equation that not only explains why light bends in acknowledging the stars it might be passing, but it also gives us reason to expect that the perihelion of planet Mercury must advance anomalously at a rate of about 43 arc seconds per century. The bending of light (refraction) was a subject that interested Newton too, as was the perturbing effect of astronomical bodies on the motion of other such bodies. Indeed, most of the actual perihelion motion of a planet is fully explained by Newtonian theory when applied to multi-body systems. It is the small amount of 43 arc seconds per century that needs explanation in the light of the fact that Newton relied on action-at-a-distance, the instantaneous action of force in regulating the motion of planets.
General relativity, once added to the base of special relativity, stands as an impregnable fortress in the eyes of those who speak on these issues. Relativity becomes the all-pervading regulator of our physical science. It has been sanctified and is beyond challenge and we are now no longer allowed to question its doctrines. However, whatever the ordinary-minded individual might think at heart, there is something unsettling when eminent authorities on relativity can suddenly see new light and then become so hostile to the subject and its flaws that they turn to attack it.
The reader may have little concern about Einstein's theory and the strength it derives from Mercury's perihelion, which helps to hold in place a misguided belief in dogma that can obstruct technological progress to the benefit of mankind. There are those amongst us, however, who must pay due attention and be concerned.
Herbert Dingle, as emeritus professor in the University of London in England, had written two books on relativity in his early years, 'Relativity for All' and 'The Special Theory of Relativity'. Later he found that he could prove it was false, but no one was prepared to give him much of a hearing, so he eventually wrote 'Science at the Crossroads', published in 1972 in London by Martin, Brian and O'Keefe. It is a damning account beginning with the assertion that it is supposed to be so abstruse that only a select body of specialists can be expected to understand it, but that in fact most leaders in science, particularly experimentalists, regard the theory as nonsense but accept it because a few mathematical specialists in the subject say they should.
Another scientist, whose main activity was the measurement of
frequency and time during the 44 years he spent at the National
Physical Laboratory in England, realized the error in Einstein's
theory early in his career. He became a Fellow of the Royal Society
and earned distinction for his measurements of the velocity of light
by a cavity resonator, besides building the first caesium clock in
1955. When he retired he published a paper explaining why relativity
was in error. The reasons are perhaps less telling than some of the
side remarks he makes in this inspiring article: 'Relativity and Time Signals' in Wireless World of October 1978, published in U.K. These include:
'The theory is so rigidly held that young scientists dare not openly express their views'.
'I was warned that if I persisted (in refuting Einstein's theory) I was likely to spoil my career prospects'.
'The general public is misled into believing that science is a mysterious subject which can be understood by only a few exceptionally gifted mathematicians'.
'Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favour of dogma'.
'...the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory'.
Dr. Essen argued the absurdity of Einstein's theory by reference to its paradoxical effects on time but ended with comments under the heading 'A Hope for the Future?' in which he wrote:
'There are fortunately a few writers who are breaking with tradition and developing new ideas which may be fruitful. In this country (England) there are two small volumes by H. Aspden ....'
It was here that Dr. Essen drew attention to this writer's books 'Physics without Einstein' and 'Modern Aether Science', published in 1969 and 1972, respectively.
Outside the realm of the relativistic specialists, who would of course be asked to review any book challenging relativity, the first of these works was well reviewed by Aslib Book List in U.K.: 'An extremely well-written and challenging book which should be read by all physicists' and by 'Geophysics' in the USA: 'The reviewer welcomes this new and stimulating challenge of the orthodox views of modern physics ... well-written ... a bargain'. However, in spite of this, the will to believe in relativity is strong and the chances are that very few readers of this paper have even heard of Dr. Essen or these books by this author.
Amongst the eminent who have philosophized on these scientific matters is Alfred North Whitehead. He wrote a work ['The Principle of Relativity with Applications to Physical Science'. See his 'An Anthology', Cambridge University Press, U.K. p. 356 (1953).] He set out to provide an alternative rendering of the theory of relativity, yielding as best he could to Einstein's methods, but trying to keep what he calls 'the old division between physics and geometry'. He acknowledges Einstein as a genius for assimilating space and time but declares 'the worst homage we can pay to a genius is to accept uncritically formulations of truths which we owe to it'. He levies quite serious criticism against the theory, but makes concessions which leave things in the air, as it were. So here is the philosopher who is also puzzled but is carried along by the common acclaim for the Emperor's invisible suit of clothes. [At this point in this paper, Harold Milnes, the Editor of The Toth-Maatian Review interjected the following footnote: 'Hans Christian Anderson never recounted the rest of the story:- how, after the small child exposed the Emperor's nudity, the crowd became ashamed and then how everyone took off his clothes too, in reverent support of his Majesty's majesty.']
Whitehead makes his point as follows:
'The effects of rotation are among the most widespread of the apparent world, exemplified in the most gigantic nebulae and in the minutest molecules. The most obvious facts about rotational effects are their apparent disconnections from outlying phenomena. Rotation is the stronghold of those who believe that in some sense there is an absolute space to provide the framework of dynamical axes. Newton cited it in support of his doctrine. The Einstein theory in explaining gravitation has made rotation an entire mystery.'
From this summary of attitudes by those who have studied relativity in depth, we should, it seems, not be too impressed by those in authority in this field; relativity could be plain wrong. So let us look at just one of its claims to fame, the background to Einstein's work on the anomalous perihelion motion of the planet Mercury.
At the outset of this discussion the author emphasized that it is presumed that the measured value of this anomalous rate of advance is 43 arc seconds per century, a value which fits the formula derived by Einstein. It remains debatable whether Einstein should have allowed a factor for solar oblateness. This could destroy his theory, but Establishment science prefers to look the other way on this point, hoping the issue will die a natural death.
There is also room for debate on whether Einstein's theory contains a major flaw. This is where its abstruse nature tends to hide its blemishes. The basic paradox in the eyes of this author arises because the governing equations of motion under gravity are worked out in the four-dimensional metric to a point where the resulting equation has, of necessity, to be interpreted in a three dimensional space in order to have any relation to what is measured. However, the equation that emerges is not one specifying the position of the planet at a given time or in relation to planetary velocity. It is a quadratic equation which is solved in linear form in order to give the measured quantities. The solution involves a mathematical process which owes nothing to relativistic method; it is strictly analysis of the dynamical equation in three-dimensional space, a mathematical exercise which the non-relativist can understand. The equation to be solved involves an angular momentum term h, which is interpreted as the velocity moment of the planetary motion about the Sun. The equation is solved on the assumption that h is constant, as it would be in Newtonian theory because angular momentum is conserved and mass does not vary with speed. The solution gives the equation for 43 arc seconds advance, so all seems well. However, what has happened to the observation that mass increases with speed? How can this result of special relativity be suddenly ignored because we have arrived at a partial result using general relativity and made the last step by reliance on Newtonian assumption?
Unless someone can explain why the mass of a planet in orbit is constant in spite of change of speed, the real solution would be way off Einstein's 43 arc second figure. It is submitted that this is a direct contradiction in Einstein's analysis; it is not consistent with relativistic method. Somehow general relativity can forget that mass increases with speed and adopt a constant h factor in line with Newtonian theory, merely by moving the analysis into four space-time dimensions. However, the nonsense involved in this seems to show up when the analysis stops short of answers that can be compared directly with observations in the real world and makes the last leg of the journey in a language that does have real meaning. This paradox has not, so far as the author is aware, been dealt with in the science literature. The author's views on it have just appeared in a science periodical [H. Aspden, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, v. 44, p. 705 (1985)], but its readers will assume that someone more familiar with relativity will be able to dispose of the problem.
On this latter point we can already see the escape route
forming by a few words in a paper by Phipps:
'The tendency of modern authorities is to dismiss 'mass variation with velocity' as an artifact of the possibly misguided attempt to express momentum in a celestial way.'
Phipps has just published this paper in the American Journal of Physics, v. 54, pp. 245-247 (1986), showing how Mercury's perihelion advance can be explained according to special relativity. He uses planetary mass variation of the planet, as did the famous American physicist H.E. Ives, to achieve this result. [H.E. Ives, Jour. Optical Soc. Am., v. 38, p. 413 (1948)]. In such analysis very much depends upon whether translation from energy equations to force equations requires angular momentum or planetary velocity moment to be constant. What some writers such as Surdin [M. Surdin, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., v.58, p. 550 (1962)] regard as a 7 arc second contribution to perihelion from the special relativity formula can become a 21 arc second contribution if the proper translation into the relativity formula is made in solving equations. This is doubled by the techniques used by Ives and Phipps to give the 42 arc second or 43 arc second result.
So, even today, the question of whether Einstein's general
theory of relativity can hold up as an explanation of Mercury's
perihelion progression is in a state of turmoil.
But, whatever we might say, surely (you might argue) we owe
some tribute to Einstein for having first presented us with the
formula that seems to fit the facts. This must bias us in his favour.
Indeed, Leon Brillouin in his critical attack on Einstein's theory of
general relativity 'Relativity Reexamined' [published by Academic Press, N.Y. (1970)] conceded something in Einstein's favour in writing:
'The advance of the perihelion of Mercury (43 arc seconds per century) was hailed as a wonderful check.'
It was as if the formula for the 43 arc seconds per century advance was not already known from the prior work of others, which Einstein presumably chose not to acknowledge.
In this regard, it should be understood that, before Einstein
appeared on the scene, the physics of the 19th century had offered
explanations for the precise advance of Mercury's perihelion. The
speed parameter c had appeared in electrodynamic equations and
efforts were made to formulate analogous gravitational equations.
These led to advance of perihelion. Suppose gravitation propagates
at a finite speed c. This means that the radial perturbations of the
planetary orbit will be retarded in relation to the orbital period.
In each successive orbit it will take a little longer for the planet
to come to perihelion and this means that the orbit will advance
progressively. The only question was that of determining the rate of
advance numerically. Physically, the advance was inevitable within
the accepted framework of 19th century physics.
As we read Whittaker's historical account [E.T. Whittaker, 'A
History of Theories of Aether and Electricity: The Classical
Theories)', Nelson, London, p. 208 (1951)], Weber's earlier ideas on electrodynamics led Tisserand in 1872 to work out that, if
gravitation propagated at the speed of light, the perihelion of
Mercury would advance 14 arc seconds per century. At that time the
estimated anomaly was 38 arc seconds per century, but by 1898
Gerber's analysis gave a value three times that of Tisserand, namely
43 arc seconds, in full accord with the value adopted by Einstein in
1916.
It was only when Einstein's paper appeared that a revised and
updated version of the Gerber paper was sent to Annalen der Physik
[P. Gerber, Ann. Phys., Lpz., v. 52, p. 415 (1917)]. It was published in January 1917. Gerber was deceased at the time his paper appeared in print and so he could not defend it against Seelinger's attack [H. Seelinger, Ann. Phys., Lpz., v. 53, p. 31 (1917)]. It was claimed that Gerber's analysis was flawed. However, Oppenheim [S. Oppenheim, Ann. Phys., Lpz., v. 53, p. 163 (1917)] took up the challenge, stressing that the issue of finite propagation speed of gravitation was still open as a basis for explaining the perihelion anomaly. This led Seelinger into a response holding firm to his position [Ann. Phys., Lpz., v.54, p. 38 (1917)]. Thus it was that Gerber's work was committed to oblivion. However, it was mentioned in the 1921 review of the literature by Pauli and emerged in translated form in the 1958 book by Pauli entitled 'Theory of Relativity'. The following text appears on p. 169:
The footnote acknowledges Gerber's 1898 paper and states that
the 1917 paper appearing in Annalen der Physik was a reprint of a
paper appearing in a rather obscure journal dated 1902. It may well,
therefore, have been submitted to Annalen der Physik after his
decease and by a colleague (Gerber was a school teacher) seeking to
relate what Gerber had proposed long before with the new result
claimed by Einstein.
Gerber had obtained the correct formula 18 years before
Einstein, but by a 'false' method. So, can it also be that Einstein
has obtained the correct formula as well, but also by the wrong
method? In saying this it is well to remember the preface note
attributed to Heaviside in 1893 and quoted at the front of
Brillouin's book (as referenced above):
This was five years before Gerber published his first paper.
The message is clear. How can one think of calculating the delay
effects of finite propagation of gravitation unless we know the route
travelled by the energy and the seat of the source? Gerber and his
predecessors assumed that it would travel along a straight line from
Sun to planet, a very direct line of transit. In fact, the energy is
likely to be spread over the field enveloping the Sun and planet. It
must travel along numerous lines of flux all of which will imply a
longer route than was used by Gerber. So if he did get it wrong and
underestimate the rate of advance, may not a correct analysis put
things right? This has been the author's own challenge! The
computations have been performed and, in fact, Gerber's original
formula can be sustained by heeding Heaviside's advice, supported by
Brillouin, and really coming to grips with the calculation.
The author's paper was published in 1980 by the Institute of
Physics in U.K. [H. Aspden, Jour. Phys., A: Math. Gen., v. 13, p.
3649 (1980)]. Predictably, however, it has aroused no interest,
because relativity remains sacrosanct; its doctrines cannot be
supplanted. The author has also developed the same theory and its
extensions in his book 'Physics Unified' published in the same year 1980.
The perihelion of the planet Mercury has become synonymous with
the name of Einstein, but, quoting again and finally some words of
Heaviside which were used to open Chapter 11 of this author's book
'Modern Aether Science':
Apart from the commentary on Mercury's perihelion, much of what
has been said above will be reminiscent of views expressed by N.
Rudakov in the beginning of his book 'Fiction Stranger than Truth' [Rudakov, P.O. Box 723, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia (1981)]. This excellent study of the metaphysical labyrinth of relativity was the first revelation to this author that his (my) non-mathematical book 'Modern Aether Science' was, in 1973, branded by a reviewer as the work of a crackpot. The work did receive two critical reviews, one in Nature, and both naming the same reviewer, a strong and now well placed member of the relativistic aristocracy. This reviewer was no crank in the eyes of the Establishment; he had just had a book of his own published showing how relativity was consistent with the universe erupting from a pin point, expanding and then, as time reversed, contracting back into its initial singularity! Such is the arena in the modern struggle between we Davids and the relativistic Goliaths.
This paper in The Toth-Maatian Review ended with a footnote
which the Editor, Harold Milnes, had added as an 'Editorial Comment':'Recently, an earlier attempt by P. Gerber has been discussed which tries to explain the perihelion advance of Mercury with the help of the finite velocity of propagation of gravitation, but which must be considered completely unsuccessful from a theoretical point of view. For while it leads admittedly to the correct formula - though on the basis of false deduction - it must be stressed that, even so, only the numerical factor was new.'
'To form any notion at all of the flux of gravitational energy, we must first localize the energy'.
'The Einstein enthusiasts are very patronizing about the
'classical electromagnetics and its ether', which they have
abolished. But they will come back to it by and by. Though it leaves
gravity out in the cold, as I remarked about 1901 (I think), gravity
may be brought in by changes in the circuital laws, of practically no
significance save in some very minute effects of doubtful
interpretation (so far). But you must work fairly with the Ether and
Forces and Momentum, etc. They are realities, without Einstein's
distorted nothingness.'
................(Unpublished notes of Heaviside, March 1920)
'We, too, have been very favourably impressed by Rudakov's excellent work. His criticisms of the relativity theory are definitive; after them, there is nothing left to that theory that may be seriously considered further by intelligent men of science. It is a pity that this person (Rudakov) seems to have departed from the scene of action, intimidated, we are given to understand, by a fear of controversy and the usual muck raking by the third line
relativists.'
The above paper dates from July 1986 but my own story concerning the perihelion of Mercury dates back more than 25 years before that. I had been developing my own account of energy storage in the vacuum by electromagnetic induction and my research was based on experimental anomalies that I encountered in my academic research. I came to believe that the aether was the essential foundation and was told that I was living in the past and should study Einstein's theory.
Well I had studied Einstein's theory already, at least to the point where I understood its scope and how its mathematics evolved the result formulating the perihelion advance of a planet in orbit around the Sun. Faced with my own interpretation of the role the aether plays in the process of electromagnetic induction and Einstein's theory, which offered no solution to the induction problem, I went my own way and I was rewarded almost immediately.
My aether could not have linear momentum, but it could have angular momentum. When I pictured body Earth in orbit around the Sun as enveloped in a coextensive sphere of aether rotating with it about its axis, I knew I was looking at what was effectively a pendulum bob in motion about a distant axis. By this I mean that I was looking at two components, one being the normal picture we see of a rotating sphere of matter describing an orbit around a remote axis and the other being an aether component. The latter itself has two parts. One is a spherical hole, which I thought would be coextensive with the space occupied by the planet. The other was the aether displaced by the motion of that hole with the planet around the Sun. Now, I knew that the electric particles which give the aether its mass property move at a high speed associated with their quantum jitter (Zitterbewegung). Therefore, I did not assume that I was dealing with a fluid medium displaced by matter, which would mean that the fluid pushed ahead of the planet by translational forward motion of its substance would simply flow backwards around the planet. Instead, I took the view that, once those particles came free from their organized motion sharing that quantum jitter, they would simply deploy their existing kinetic energy to travel at their full speed and rectilinearly across the region of space within that 'hole'. Here was the point of mentioning that 'pendulum bob'. The angular momentum of the aether hole plus its content of aether particles in reverse flow would not be zero. It would be that of a sphere of the aether's mass density rotating at the angular velocity of the planet's motion around the Sun.
This may need a little thought, based on the reader's familiarity with Newtonian mechanics, but here, to be sure, was a feature that could bring in the aether's angular momentum properties into the discussion of solar system dynamics. Believe it or not, the aether does have a mass density and it is of the order predicted from classical studies of electromagnetic wave properties. 19th century physicists deemed it to be of the order of 100 gm/cc. There is also need for rigidity to sustain the lateral vibrations as they propagate at the speed of light, but it is a quasi-rigidity governed by those aether particles (or sub-electrons, to use the terminology of one of these lecture topics) forming a structure which can dissolve at its boundaries.
So far as Mercury's anomalous perihelion motion is concerned, you, the reader, can now work out the rate of advance of perihelion yourself. You need simply to know, firstly, the effective mass density of the aether in its spin condition. There is a zero momentum, or rather a cancelling momentum, for rectilinear motion. Then you need to know that aether mass density and the radius of the 'hole', which should be a little larger than that of planet. By factoring the variation of aether angular momentum into your equation of motion for the planet about the Sun, the resulting anomalous progression of perihelion is derived.
This was how I first tackled the problem of the perihelion
anomaly in the 1950s, having already calculated that aether mass
density in deriving the value of Planck's quantum of action from
basic theoretical analysis.
For the record I mention that in the book I wrote towards the
end of 1959, which I published myself early in 1960 under the title 'The Theory of Gravitation', the chapter on perihelion motion showed that the above method gave the following data:
Now, in doing my theoretical research, I had not set out to enter any contest with Einstein's theory. I simply wanted to get my point across about the nature of magnetic induction and how the aether stores energy in a way that allows its recovery in our electrical machines. To be told I was wrong because there was no aether was extremely frustrating and it was that made me alert to the need to look for what Einstein had missed. Already, in developing my theory from day one, I had been lucky enough to be led from my study of ferromagnetism to see how electrodynamic force interactions can give a force that is needed for unification with gravitation. My target therefore was not the problems which concerned Einstein, but rather deducing G, the constant of gravitation, in terms of e/m, the charge/mass ratio of the electron.
My pre-1960 efforts on that, as summarized in Chapter 4 of that book, show that I was on track. Indeed, equation (24) in that work gave the formula for G in terms of e/m, m/M and the dimensionless fine structure constant (1/137). Here, M was a mass also derived theoretically, but of value virtually equal to that of the neutron, that is very slightly larger than the mass of the proton. G was evaluated as within one part per thousand accord with its observed value.
I therefore knew that aether theory of this kind could bear fruit, but these were early days, and my story here concerns that perihelion motion of the planets.
For many years following this early work, I was struggling with the problem that, in regarding the advance of perihelion as a function of a planet's aether radius, I had introduced a variable that I could not check with observation. I knew that, for body Earth, the upper ionosphere was the appropriate radius to put in the equation. For Mercury, the orbit of which has a high eccentricity, my equation had to allow for the aether radius being staged in having an inner and outer spherical boundary, as a function of that eccentricity. I was, therefore, more satisfied with the result for the Earth than for Mercury. I also recall that Venus could pose a problem, depending upon the true value of the observed advance of perihelion. This was certainly not known, with anything like the certainty that applied to Mercury. I noted that the radius of the aether might need to be less that the radius of the planet in some cases.
It was for this reason that I concentrated my onward efforts on developing the theory as it applied to interpreting the basis of the dimensionless physical constants, because these are known to very high precision. This led me more towards particle physics and the underlying quantum features rather than cosmology, whereas Einstein's theory had been seized upon by those who champion cosmological topics.
It was therefore not until 1976 that I really began to look for other ways of addressing the perihelion problem. Then, starting from scratch, as it were, I made the bold step of seeing if I could begin with Kepler's third law of planetary motion and simply allow for the retardation of energy transfer in a radial perturbation. I adopted the following hypothesis: If a particle of relatively small mass m is acted upon by a particle of relatively large mass M so as to be accelerated towards M at a rate f, then the force which M exerts on m is that applicable when m is a distance s further away from M, s being the distance ft2/2 corresponding to acceleration f in the time t, where t is the time taken for energy to travel from m to M and back to m.
When I allowed for the differential effect of this upon the radial and orbital periods of cyclic oscillation in the formulation of Kepler's law, what emerged immediately in a few lines of school-level mathematics was the formula for perihelion advance derived by Paul Gerber and later adopted by Einstein.
I needed a little time to weigh what this meant to my aether theory, but I thought I had to at least try to get this derivation published. It was in no way dependent upon an argument which required mention of the aether. I was having very great difficulty getting my papers accepted by scientific journals at that time and I even wondered if I might succeed in this quest by using an alias. That I did, as a test of the journal referee system, and, to my great surprise, the very short two-page paper I then wrote on this Kepler-based derivation of the perihelion formula was accepted. The alias I used was J. N. Kidman, using the maiden surname of my mother-in-law, thinking this was apt name for use as an alias in this instance.
Teachers of Newtonian mechanics who wish to introduce anomalous planetary perihelion motion in their teaching syllabus will find it of interest to look up that paper. Its title is 'Quantum Gravitation and the Perihelion Anomaly' [Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, v. 18, pp. 181-182 (1977)]. No longer published, this was, at the time, an English-text scientific periodical offering rapid publication, the publishers and referee structure being the Italian Institute of Physics. As a side comment, it is interesting to note that Einstein turned to this journal for publication of his later papers when he too found it difficult to satisfy U.S. journal referees.
From then on, dating from that 1977 period, I was on the look out for ways in which to give a more formal basis to this method of solving the perihelion problem and by 1980 I had discovered the correct way forward. However, the fact remains that I wondered how I had been misled by the earlier pre-1960 analysis of Mercury's perihelion anomaly based on aether theory. It is only now (1997) that I am ready to commit to a position on this dual theory proposition. I have come to believe that the energy retardation theory explains the actual perihelion motion, but that what I have said above about compliance with aether angular momentum applies as well. What this means is that the unknown variable, the radius of the aether sphere rotating with the planet, is not determined necessarily by the physical extent of the planetary body. Instead, in order for the aether angular momentum to adjust in compliance with the planet's orbital motion, so as not to interfere with the motion of the matter system, that variable parameter must adopt the right value. In short, the aether spin radius of the planet is determined as a secondary consequence of the Newtonian dynamics of the solar system, as adjusted to bring in the energy retardation in radial Sun-planet orbital perturbations.
For those who are interested in technological issues but have read this far, there is much that I will have to say on the vacuum spin theme as it applies to laboratory tests on a new kind of electrical machine. However, at this point, I bring this particular lecture to an end, but note again that there is now a Part II discourse to follow on 'Why Einstein was Wrong', where I address the subject from a different perspective. See LECTURE No. IIIb.
to return to the main site index.