LECTURE NO. IIIb

A CRITICAL OPINION ON EINSTEIN'S THEORY

Copyright © Harold Aspden, 2001

INTRODUCTION

Almost all of the text of this LECTURE was written in 1993, it being intended for inclusion in a draft of a second edition of the author's book 'Physics without Einstein', published in 1969. The project was then shelved as the author became distracted by the prospect of engaging in an experimental pursuit connected with a revival of aspects of energy science that had been repressed many decades ago as the philosophy of Albert Einstein took root. The style and content of this 1993 draft has been left unchanged and been subject to only minor editing but a short concluding note written in 2001 and duly identified has been added at the end.

INTRODUCTION

Einstein was wrong because he relied upon the hypothesis that the velocity of light as measured within an enclosure cannot reveal the non-rotary motion of that enclosure. We are part of a system that rotates through one revolution once every day and it is now possible to measure our West-East speed by experiment performed wholly within a laboratory.

This destroys Einstein's theory of special relativity. His general theory, which concerns gravitational effects, has also been proved to be invalid by observations on two bodies of near-equal mass moving under the exclusive influence of their gravitational interaction.

There is no possible way for Einstein's theory to recover from this situation. However, physicists and cosmologists are too busy building on Einstein's foundations to stand back and, from a survey, realize their need to shift to new ground.

'Physics without Einstein' appeared in its original edition in 1969, before the above killing evidence, all of which is of U.S. origin, was of record. This author, from a U.K. academic research background, had very good reasons for advocating an alternative theory stemming from the study of magnetic reaction phenomena. From that effort, albeit confronting a hostile audience with a theory that was evolving rapidly, emerged that 224 page work which the author knew offered the key to gravitation, linking it with the quantum action and fundamentals of hadron physics.

The book was ignored, but, rather curiously, several years after its publication, the Italian Institute of Physics decided to publish an unsolicited review. It appeared, in Italian, at p. 505 in Il Nuovo Cimento, 28B, and included the following text:

"From a close analysis of the grounds of this theory new concepts arise having great theoretical potential.....The book represents undoubtedly only a first step in the development of the theory and does not claim to give a complete description.....Undoubtedly also for Aspden's book it can be noted the lack of that formal polish which is characteristic of general relativity and which makes it so attractive. In fact, however, since the attempts to unify gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena led to incomplete results and since the physics of particles is unable to match with a satisfactory theory the multiplicity of experimental discoveries, it seems appropriate to wonder whether we should take into serious consideration also possible alternatives to relativity. After all, it would be better to do it now that no experimental discovery has unquestionably contradicted the theory of relativity rather than in the future when, in front of the collapse (unlikely in the short term, but not impossible) of all the relativistic structure, it would be hard and slow to trace a new path out of the dust and ruins."

Unfortunately, the scientific community has chosen to bury their heads in the sand and so that collapse has occurred. The author has, accordingly, now decided to produce this book entitled 'The Physics of Creation' as, in a sense, second edition of 'Physics without Einstein' with the object of making one last and final attempt to defeat the Einstein doctrine whilst providing in one work a co-ordinated data base referring to the author's many published papers on the subject.

Readers will find that Einstein's theory will only be discussed in Part III of this work, as by this, the preceding LECTURE IIIa and the following LECTURE No. IIIc, though some references to the research of others on matters already discussed in Part I will be mentioned again here. This book is concerned with the way forward and not with a philosophy that has, for most of the 20th century, been so detrimental to the development of energy science.

This LECTURE alone, even without the help of LECTURE IIIa, will suffice to show 'Why Einstein was wrong'.

HISTORICAL NOTE

It may surprise the reader to know that before Einstein appeared on the scene in 1905 a schoolmaster in Germany, named Paul Gerber, had already in 1898 published a paper [1] in a major German science periodical entitled: 'The space and time propagation of gravitation', which paper gave the precise formula that Einstein [2] published in 1916 as part of his offering on general relativity.

It may surprise the reader to know also that in 1904 a Cambridge scientist in U.K. (Jeans) suggested in the journal Nature [3] that the energy of stars could be produced by the transmutation of matter into energy. This was not some out-of-the-way suggestion by a crank. It was of such recognized consequence that it was reported in an important science textbook [4] published in that same year 1904.

The fact that J. J. Thomson had recognized that a charge owed its mass property to the electromagnetic energy accompanying its motion and so its increasing inertia would prevent it from ever moving at a speed greater than light is also discussed in that same 1904 textbook.

Although Einstein [5] did not admit to knowing about Lorentz's 1904 paper [6] at the time he launched special relativity in 1905, physicists following the developments in electromagnetism could see that Lorentz had reacted to defend his law of electrodynamics against the findings of the 1903 Trouton-Noble experiment.

That experiment would, by its design principle, have detected our motion through space electrodynamically, if the Lorentz force law held up for action between two discrete electrical charges in motion. It gave a null and, before physicists could react to say that the Lorentz force law was wrong, when applied to discrete charge interactions, Lorentz had jumped into the arena in 1904 to declare that we needed to transform our concepts of space and time to get the scientific bookkeeping to balance!

Einstein then appeared on the scene with his 1905 paper 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' [5] and, in reading it, one would think that he knew of none of these prior events but was merely preoccupied by Maxwell's work and the problem of relative motion involving magnets.

This author here points to the fact that, in not (a) seeing that Lorentz was wrong in defending his force law and (b) in choosing to follow a similar distorted space-time route, Einstein missed the entry point that would have led to something that was to elude him for the rest of his life, the unifying link between electrodynamics and gravitation.

Now, of course, modern physicists have no concern with these historic developments. What counts today is what works and can be verified by experiment. So, let us address the matter of experiment directly and show why Einstein has now been proved wrong.

THE PERIHELION MOTION OF PLANET MERCURY

Einstein's general theory of relativity owes much of its support to astronomical observations. Strictly, these hardly qualify as 'experiments', but, just as such 'observations' provide the 'proof' on which relativity has been accepted, so they can equally be taken as evidence of 'disproof'.

The reader does not need to understand the mathematics of Einstein's theory to appreciate the point we now make. It suffices to remember that Einstein's theory concerning gravitation requires that space is 'curved' by the presence of heavy bodies such as the sun. Therefore a planet moving around the sun in the manner prescribed by Newton's law of gravitation is supposedly subject to a constraint that arises from the 'curvature' of what is often referred to as 'four-space'.

Einstein derived the formula for the advance of perihelion of planet Mercury by assuming that the central attracting body, the sun, has a very large mass compared with the orbiting planet.

It may be noted that Einstein did, in his 1916 paper [2], discuss the conservation of momentum and energy in relation to his 'four-space' analysis of gravitation. His analysis purported to show that energy could transfer between the motion of matter and the 'gravitational field' but there is no mention of 'gravitational waves' or of another energy form that could be in transit between the field and matter nor were any retardation effects ascribed to such energy in transit.

On the contrary, Einstein is so intent on conserving the mathematical balance that he imposes the:

'requirement that the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy.'

It is important, therefore, to recognize a point which some authors have made about Einstein's theory, which is that, by adding the fourth space dimension and imposing the mathematical tensor constraints of general relativity, Einstein has converted Newton's action-at-a-distance theory to one involving 'action-at-no-distance'.

This means that the planet in orbit around the sun exchanges energy locally with the gravitational field and has a motion determined by the local curvature of that field.

If now the body in orbit is a star attracted to another star so that both form a binary system, each star will, according to Einstein's theory, move under similar curved field constraints.

In contrast, if one were to justify the anomalous perihelion motion as being attributable to the retardation effects resulting from energy transfer between the two bodies, the mass centres of each being deemed as the focal points through which energy must pass, then different circumstances apply to that binary star system. For two such bodies of identical mass moving around each other in elliptical orbits, the very symmetry of this action tells us that there is no energy in transit between them.

Consequently, a binary star system, in which the two stars have equal mass, will not exhibit any perihelion motion on the latter theory but it will exhibit such motion on Einstein's theory.

THE DOUBLE-STAR DI HERCULIS

DI Herculis lies about 2,000 light years from the Sun. It consists of two stars of 4.5 and 5.2 solar masses, respectively. They orbit one another with a period of 10.55 days and their orbit has an eccentricity of 0.489. We happen to see the orbit almost edge-on and so, as each star passes in front of the other and so eclipses it, the combined light from the pair dips twice per orbit. Astronomers can, therefore, measure the times of eclipse accurately and study the gradual migration away from predicted times owing to the apsidal motion of the stars.

In 1985 such observational data on DI Herculis had been accumulated for 84 years (nearly 3000 orbits) and this enabled a very reliable determination of the rate of apsidal motion.

Now, in contrast with the planet Mercury, for which the tests for relativity were based on an anomalous advance of perihelion of 43 arc-sec per century, the corresponding relativistic calculations for DI Herculis predict an advance of 2.34 degree per century. This dominates the additional 1.93 degree per century predicted from classical effects of the tidal gas movement on both stars, to give an overall expected perihelion motion of 4.27 degree per century.

In the case of planet Mercury, the classical 'tidal' effect is there replaced by overwhelming effects of other planets, so that the anomaly we recognize is minute in comparison with the result measured. Therefore, the DI Herculis observations should be an even better test of relativity than the data for planet Mercury.

Note, that on the assumption of retarded energy transfer as an explanation of anomaly, but with equal masses of the two bodies, even the tidal effects would be subject to symmetry and so would not, in theory, lead to any perihelion motion.

The DI Herculis data was reported in 1985 by Guinan and Maloney of the Villanova University of Pennsylvania [7]. They found that the actual apsidal motion, which corresponds to the perihelion motion, was only 0.64 degrees per century, that is one-seventh of the value expected.

This clearly invalidates the General Theory of Relativity. On the other hand, since the difference in masses of the two stars is 0.7 solar masses, which is 0.167 of the mass of the lighter star and 0.135 of the mass of the heavier star, the mean effect on the common perihelion advance will be 0.151 of the value predicted by Guinan and Maloney, as based on relativity. Note then that the observed 0.64 degrees per century divided by the theoretical 4.27 degrees per century is 0.l50.

This clearly supports the theory based on retarded energy transfer.

Bear in mind here the authoritative academic source of this paper, its publication in the Astrophysical Journal and its title 'The apsidal motion of the eccentric eclipsing binary DI Herculis - an apparent discrepancy with general relativity'. This was a clear message that Einstein's theory had been invalidated.

Considering that it was in 1985 that these observations on DI Herculis were reported and interpreted as defying Einstein's theory and bearing in mind that cosmologists still show no signs of responding to this situation, one must assume that the scientific community is reluctant to admit they have been wrong.

In these circumstances, perhaps the reader will understand why the author interrupts comment on the anti-relativity experimental evidence to include the next section.

RELATIVITY - JOKE OR SWINDLE?

This was the title of an article which appeared in 1988, authored by Dr. L. Essen FRS.

Dr. Essen's main activity during 44 years with the National Physical Laboratory in England was the measurement of frequency and time. He built the first caesium clock in 1955, later used with the U.S. Naval Observatory to define the atomic second. One of his early sideline research projects was a determination of the velocity of light by cavity resonator which showed Michelson's value to be 17 km/s too low.

Essen, always interested in relativity, repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1937 and with radio waves in 1955, when he first pointed out the basic error in the theory. Although Essen stressed that:

"No one has attempted to refute my arguments."

He also said:

"I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects".

Once retired he was able to express views such as:

"The theory is so rigidly held that young scientists dare not openly express their doubts."
"...the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory."
"A hope for the future? There are fortunately a few writers who are breaking with tradition and developing new ideas that may be fruitful. In this country there are two small volumes by H. Aspden ..."

These are quotations from Essen's earlier October 1978 article in Wireless World, at pp. 44-45, entitled "Relativity and time signals" in which he draws attention to the internal inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. The references to the 'two small volumes' by this author were to my books 'Physics without Einstein' and 'Modern Aether Science'.

As an expert of time measurement and atomic clocks Essen surely was in a position to question with authority and his findings are not to be ignored.

It was at the end of his article that he referred to this author but this was in the context of the damage which Einstein's theory was doing in impeding energy research aimed at gaining access to the vast energy resource hidden in a field that Einstein would have us replace by a meaningless four-space equation.

It was in August 1987 that this author [8] drew attention in the same magazine to an experiment by E. W. Silvertooth [9] which had been reported as successful in detecting motion through space by a light-speed anisotropy test confined to the laboratory.

This caused Dr. Essen in 1988 to write an article [10] bearing the title 'Relativity - joke or swindle?' which bore a caption saying that he was re-stating his view that Einstein's theory of relativity contains basic and fatal flaws.

He contended in this article that this author's reference to new experimental work was not required to disprove the theory, though it might confirm that Einstein's assumptions were wrong. He added:

"This is not to suggest that experimental results are not important but they should be considered as steps in the development of new theories."

The sad fact, however, is that the scientific community has adopted Einstein's beliefs and there is a determination to hold on to those beliefs until the bitter end, because they have gone past the point of no return. Only irrefutable experimental evidence, coupled with consequences that impact a technological world happy to survive by enjoying energy from a source forbidden by Einstein's doctrines, can bring the needed change of heart. There is little future for experts on the theory of relativity, because they have drowned themselves in an ocean of space-time devoid of the energy they need for survival.

Concerning Einstein's theory, Dr. Essen noted:

"There have always been its critics. Rutherford treated it as a joke; Soddy called it a swindle; Bertrand Russell suggested it was all contained in the Lorentz transformation equations; and many scientists commented on its contradictions."

Given thiat as background, we will next address the experiment which disproves the theory of relativity.

SPEED OF LIGHT MEASUREMENT

Relativists assume that the speed of light in vacuo is constant, taking the observer as the reference. Pre-Einstein beliefs held that the constant speed of light in vacuo takes its reference on the elusive but ever-present 'aether' medium.

This author believes that the 'aether' has a structure akin to a liquid crystal, which can adapt to electric field influence and adopt structure compliant with, and sharing the motion of, the electrode source that produces that field. This is 'belief' and 'hypothesis' but it serves to justify the concept of 'aether drag' without requiring a kind of 'aether wind' such as might be imagined as counterflow around a moving object.

The structure 'dissolves', in part, when it is transported by attachment to material bodies, including atomic molecules, and the dissolved medium merges with the virtual lepton background that one associates with the quantum-electrodynamic field environment. The latter is the hidden energy sea which pervades the universe and this fluid-like field system can have a counterflow through the 'aether' lattice which serves to preserve a uniform and universal equilibrium of vacuum energy density.

It was in this general way that the author became reconciled with the Michelson-Morley experimental result that failed to sense the Earth's motion through space. However, whereas Lorentz and Einstein were to alter our notions of distance and time to make sense of that experiment, this author was attentive to the electrodynamic actions and the weaknesses of the Lorentz force law. The aether was essential as a reacting medium needed to explain certain magnetic reaction anomalies, including the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction, and so it seemed totally absurd to let a new mathematical philosophy intrude into the physics underlying these phenomena.

The 1969 edition of 'Physics without Einstein' does not, therefore, dwell upon the measurement of the speed of light, much as this was the prime concern of Dr. Einstein and, in common with most of those who disbelieve relativity, his later antagonist Dr. Essen. Indeed, at the time that book was written, this author had no knowledge of Dr. Essen, whose attack on Einstein was launched in 1971 by an Oxford Science Research Paper No. 5 entitled 'The Special Theory of Relativity - A critical Analysis', published by the Clarendon Press in Oxford, followed in 1972 by a paper by Essen entitled 'Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity', published in Proceedings of the Royal Institution, London, 45, p.141.

There seemed to be no purpose in questioning the research findings of those who had measured the speed of light and had opted to support Einstein.

'Physics without Einstein' gave account of a vacuum structure which, by its geometry in energy quantization and its harmonious action in providing juxtaposed dynamic balance between local matter and a 'graviton' system, afforded quantitative and qualitative explanations for the nature of gravitation and the quantum properties of atoms. It further provided the foundations from which the inner secrets of the proton and the deuteron were to unfold as their creation from the background lepton energy sea was probed.

The author did, however, in that 1969 book 'Physics without Einstein', suggest that one day we might be able to sense our motion through space from tests confined within an enclosed laboratory. On page 190 it was said that the mass of the graviton might be very slightly dependent upon our translational motion through cosmic space. The effective value of the constant of gravitation G, as it applies between stars and planets, might vary in a way which implies that reconciliation of inertial and gravitational interactions require very slight mass discrepancies evidencing the cosmic motion.

As the reader will find, though the latter gravitational theme is not developed in this new text, much will be said about the derivation of the values of fundamental physical constants and, there is one open question concerning the fine-structure constant which retains the doubt as to whether that constant depends very slightly on cosmic motion.

However, when the author found, in writing his later 1980 work 'Physics Unified', that he had to address the speed of light experiments, the following conclusion emerged:

"Light in vacuum is propagated at a speed which is independent of direction when measured relative to an inertial reference frame."

This is not the same as the prescription one could write according to the Principle of Relativity:

"Light in vacuum is propagated at a speed which is independent of direction when measured relative to an inertial reference frame and is the same for all inertial reference frames."

To understand this distinction, suppose that we have an enclosed test apparatus sitting on a laboratory bench. That bench at a latitude of, say, 36^oN, moves in an easterly direction at some 370 m/s owing to Earth rotation and it has a rotation period of once per day. It also moves about the sun at a speed of 30 km/s subject to a rotation rate of once per year and it moves in a galactic-cum- cosmic sense at some 400 km/s with a rotation rate measured in time periods of the order of one hundred million years.

By mounting the bench in a gimbal support system its rotation can be eliminated, but to replicate true inertial frame conditions, the displacement needed during the transit time of light over an optical test range is so small as not to warrant correction. The test apparatus is, for practical purpose, one which defines its own non-rotating inertial frame of reference.

Einstein's theory requires that the eastward speed of light is the same as the westward speed, so if we can sense that 370 m/s motion of the Earth then we have disproved Einstein's theory. Note that the object is not to sense Earth rotation. That was done by Michelson and Gale [11] using an interferometer which involved transmitting light rays in opposite directions around a rectangular path and that rotation was sensed.

For some reason, which the reader might be able to justify to his or her own satisfaction, the detection of rotation by optical sensing of motion through the light reference frame is not deemed to invalidate Einstein's theory.

Here it is noted that in 1921 Einstein delivered a course of lectures at Princeton University which was later to be the basis of his book 'The Meaning of Relativity'. In this book he did refer specifically to the Michelson-Morley experiment, of which he said:

"All experiments have shown that electro-magnetic and optical phenomena, relatively to the Earth as the body of reference, are not influenced by the translational velocity of the Earth. The most important of these experiments are known as those of Michelson and Morley, which I shall assume are known. The validity of special relativity also with regard to electro-magnetic phenomena can therefore hardly be doubted."

Einstein did not comment on, or show any sign of even knowing about the 1913 Sagnac experiment [12] by which rotation of a test apparatus was detected by optical interferometry within the rotating test cavity. He was, however, very careful in specifying 'translational velocity' in the above-quoted text, though one may wonder why he chose to impose this limitation when his theory of general relativity had already been published.

Einstein's own statement of 'the fundamental idea of the general principle of relativity' is:

"All Gaussian co-ordinate systems are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of nature".

This had extended his theory from the restrictions of the Galilean inertial and non-rotating frames of reference which were the exclusive province of his special theory.

Now, Einstein may not have known about the Sagnac experiment. If he did, then he chose to ignore it by that translational velocity restriction, but he surely would have come to know about the Michelson-Gale experiment when he came to write updated editions of the books just referenced. The 1954 fifth edition update of 'The Meaning of Relativity' did not include any reference to Sagnac or the Michelson-Gale experiment. Nor did the 1952 fifteenth edition of his book 'Relativity'. Therefore, he ought to have addressed the consequences of the detection of rotation, inasmuch as that rotation was detected by optical sensing of the speed of light as referenced on a non-rotating inertial frame of reference.

How can it be that the laws governing the speed of light in a rotating system do not adapt to preclude the sensing of the rotation of the Gaussian system defined by the Sagnac or Michelson-Morley experiment, as required by general relativity?

If one must ignore rotating systems in testing the special theory of relativity then, bearing in mind that our Earth is a rotating system, how is it that Einstein's theory has any relevance to the real world?

In these circumstances it is inevitable that, eventually, someone will penetrate the clouds which hang over the Einstein doctrine and show that it is one great myth! However, before referring to the principal experiment which this author regards as the 'killer' of special relativity, it is of interest to see how relativity can mislead researchers on the U.S. space projects.

THE VESSOT AND LEVINE EXPERIMENT

This author well remembers receiving in 1986 a rejection of a paper submitted to Physical Review Letters. The editor enlightened the author by drawing attention to a prior publication by Vessot and Levine [13] of the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard College Observatory and Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory which very clearly demonstrated that the speed of light as measured over a journey of 10,000 km between Earth and a space probe was the same on the outward journey as it was on the inward journey. The experiment was so precise that this equality over the whole trajectory had been verified to find that δc/c was appreciably less than one part in 100 million. See Table I in their paper.

Einstein's theory which puts the Earth station in the privileged 'observer' position of being the reference frame for light in transit through outer space was clearly confirmed. It was irrefutable and the U.S. space program could rely on relativistic computations for their navigation. Vessot and Levine were awarded a prize for this remarkable achievement.

The author, and hopefully now the reader, was duly concerned by this authoritative rejection by the premier learned scientific authority in the United States and the backing it had from a U.S. government funded research program. The whole of this author's work on which he had been crossing swords with those who believe in Einstein's theory was therefore in issue.

However, within moments of reading the Vessot paper, the author discovered what should, to any discerning mathematically-minded physicist, be seen as an unforgivable error.

It is so obvious that the author will not waste text here to review its details. The reader is left to look up the paper and trace the error as a test of his or her own skills. One clue is given and this is that if, when in developing an argument, one has recourse to making approximations by eliminating small high-order terms in a progressive mathematical series, one should discount similar terms of that same order that creep back into the onward analysis. Vessot and Levine had not kept faith with that principle and had, sadly, developed a totally erroneous formula which they then used as the basis of assessment of a speed of light discrepancy that should appear in the project test data. Their incorrect mathematical analysis meant that their experimental data implied the near-perfect constancy of light speed over the test range in outer space.

On this finding, the author tried to get the Editor of Physical Review Letters to withdraw the rejection and reconsider the submitted paper. However, editorial prudence prevailed and, with so much at stake that mattered to the scientific community, it was better to ignore the truth and avoid embarrassing problems, so the author's paper stood rejected. One can, of course, recognize that editors often make decisions on a casual and cursory basis as part of a filtering process and, as they think it unlikely that anyone will topple Einstein, so they can feel justified in ignoring those who try.

The author did not see this as something that was merely of academic interest and so advised those administering the U.S. NASA-funded project. After inspecting the author's submission as to why Vessot and Levine were wrong, those authorities duly took the matter seriously and the author was advised by return telex message that the point at issue was well taken and would be investigated. They commissioned a university project to respond to and hopefully recover the situation, which led to effort spread over several months, all aimed at defending the Einstein's theory but by standing on other grounds.

In the end, as might be expected, and with this author forgotten and deemed to be subdued, those who enjoy the Einstein scenario continue to thrive in the influence they exert on the government funded space programs. But, they are merely digging for themselves a deeper grave in which they must eventually put their champion to rest and, I trust, share some of the shame for misleading the world at large.

From this author's viewpoint, there was, however, some gratification to see that, if not the Editor of Physical Review Letters, at least those involved in government-funded projects soon became cautious about the claims made in the Vessot and Levine experiment.

Indeed, the author's point is clearly registered in the Physical Review A paper by Gagnon, Torr, Kolen and Chang [14] which, after referring to the Vessot and Levine paper, includes the sentence:

"It can be shown, however, that transport of the space-borne clock produces an effect that cancels any possible direction-dependent variation of the measured speed of light."

This paper is the subject of further discussion below.

ONE-WAY SPEED OF LIGHT MEASUREMENT

Readers who refer to the author's 1980 book 'Physics Unified' will see on pages 57-58 a reference to E.W. Silvertooth. Having embarked on the task of writing a text concerning the author's aether theory of gravitation and having decided to include a section on light speed anisotropy tests, the author had become attentive to Silvertooth's experimental efforts.

At the time, the author had some concern because Silvertooth seemed to be on the verge of proving that one could sense our cosmic motion by optical techniques and so achieve the primary objective that had confronted Michelson and Morley.

Nevertheless, after visiting Silvertooth, the author in consolidating his opinions on the subject of testing for light speed anisotropy, settled for the view that we should aim to sense the eastward linear motion in our efforts to secure the clear experimental disproof of Einstein's theory.

'Physics Unified' was written with that assumption, and, partly owing to the fact that the author was fully engaged in corporate employment on duties well removed from events concerning tests of Einstein's theory, the author was not then aware of the 1979 Vessot and Levine report [13] above or the 1979 report by Brillet and Hall [15]. The latter experiment, which will be mentioned below, has become the authoritative experiment quoted in support of Einstein's theory as basic to the general teaching of the theory of relativity.

It was in June 1981 that the author attended the National Bureau of Standards conference on 'Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants II' and came to hear about an experiment by Torr and Kolen [16] of Utah State University by which the one-way speed of light had been measured.

Note that the normal requirement is that light has to be reflected back on itself to complete a measurement over a set distance and this obscures any anisotropy effect by making it a second-order test of v/c. Here v is the speed of the test apparatus in moving through the light reference frame and c is the speed of light. The Michelson-Morley experiment requires precision able to sense (v/c)², whereas, if a one-way test were possible, that would be first-order and involve sensing v/c.

By propagating a signal between two synchronized rubidium vapor frequency standards over a 500 m separation distance they claimed that, although the mean round-trip velocity remained constant to within 0.001% of the speed c, the one-way components could be some 0.1% or more different from the reference speed c.

This report of the Torr and Kolen experiment did not help in the author's onward quest to establish the invalidity of Einstein's theory of relativity, but it made the author receptive when, in 1986 Silvertooth claimed in the journal 'Nature' to have measured the 400 km/s cosmic motion by what was a quite interesting technique [9]. Indeed, the author, though not having witnessed Silvertooth's tests, assisted by drawing attention to Silvertooth's work [17, 18] and then began the patient wait for his findings to be confirmed.

Details of Silvertooth's experiment were described by Wesley in a paper in his book 'Progress in Space-Time Physics 1987' [19] on the basis of his discussions with Silvertooth and material he left with Wesley. Wesley noted that Silvertooth's experiment was sponsored in part by US Air Force Systems, Rome Development Center, Griffith Air Force Base and Defense Advanced Research Agency.

The experiment was a first-order one-way speed-of-light test in the sense that he caused a one-way component of a laser beam to interfere with a standing wave set up by the same laser and scanned a sensor through the standing wave to see how the nodes were shifted as a function of spatial orientation of his apparatus.

Eventually, Silvertooth (now deceased) pursuaded Gagnon at the U.S. Naval Weapons Center at China Lake, California to repeat the experiment using one of Silvertooth's standing wave sensors, but no positive confirmation (or denial) of Silvertooth's finding was reported. Accordingly, the Silvertooth experiment cannot, at the time this text is written, be regarded as confirmed. Its acceptance would have sounded the death knell for Einstein's theory but death can come in many ways and we must here turn attention to another experiment which, in my opinion, does deal its own death blow.

It is relevant to note that this eventual one-way speed-of-light experiment that disproves Einstein's theory is authored by Gagnon, as well as by Torr and Kolen plus another researcher Chang [14], but it used a novel and totally different technique from the prior proposals. It comprised a test based on the cut-off frequency of a wave guide.

It gave a clear null result for a hypothesis in which 'anisotropy of cosmic radiation is used to define a preferred frame of reference' by which is meant the dependence upon the cosmic component of Earth motion as opposed to the ever-eastward motion of the laboratory in the Earth's inertial frame. Although the authors are careful to stress that their results 'have not yielded a measurable direction-dependent variation of the one-way speed of light', their experimental data clearly indicate a signal of about 0.5 μV representing eastward motion. This is read in conjunction with a conversion factor of 60 μV per degree of phase shift measured, where 19^o would correspond to the peak to peak shift expected on the reversal of the 400 km/s motion direction through space.

This corresponds to 800 km/s divided by 19x120 as a measure of the eastward speed of motion attributable to the Earth's daily rotation, which is 350 m/s. The authors noted that the apparatus was turning in a laboratory located at a latitude of 36^o N and this experimental result, reported in 1988, therefore means that it is possible to sense the speed of a test device using optical speed-of-light sensing wholly confined within the enclosure housing the apparatus.

This very definitely disproves Einstein's principle of special relativity!

However, it no doubt was helpful in gaining acceptance for their paper by 'Physical Review', that the authors included the following summary in the abstract of that paper:

"Our results have not yielded a measurable direction-dependent variation of the one-way speed of light. A clear null is obtained for a hypothesis in which anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation is used to define a preferred frame of reference."

What this 'null' result means is that they could not sense the 400 km/s motion through space implied by the anisotropy of the measurements of cosmic background radiation of record that had inspired their initiative in undertaking their experiment on the 'Guided-wave measurement of the one-way speed of light'.

One must assume that, just as Dr. Essen had to be careful not to upset the authorities at the National Physical Laboratory in England by overtly challenging Einstein's theory, so Gagnon, Torr, Kolen and Chang, reporting in 'Physical Review' on a project funded by the Research Department of U.S. Naval Weapons Center, Michelson Laboratory at China Lake felt it appropriate to avoid drawing attention to the detection of that West-East component of motion relative to the Earth's spin axis which itself evidences the clear anti-relativity significance of their findings.

RELATIVITY AND ROTATION

'Relativity and Rotation' was the title of a short item of correspondence by this author, which was written in November 1981 and published in a scientific periodical Speculations in Science and Technology (SST) [20] in 1983.

The following text is taken, word for word from that text in order to show what this author was saying several years before the Gagnon et al experiment:

"In a review of my book 'Physics Unified', Allen D. Allen (SST 4, 579; 1981) says that it is not clear how the variability of the speed of light in rotating media argues against the theory of relativity. This lack of clarity may well be due to the fact that my primary argument in Chapter 3 of the book was directed to showing that the vacuum might have structure and that, if this structure rotated with the Earth or with other rotating objects, motion referenced on a non-rotating frame might well be detected optically. I did say that if speed, as opposed to angular velocity, could be detected optically by reference to a non-rotating frame, the optical sensing being confined to the vacuum enclosed by the apparatus, then this would have dire consequences for the theory of relativity. I explain why below.

Relativity does account for the optical sensing of relative motion in an inertial frame of parts of a rotating object and so the angular speed of that object. Thus, there was the Michelson-Gale experiment which evidenced Earth rotation in the interference patterns of light rays sent in opposite directions around a closed circuit. Also, there is the Sagnac experiment and the modern ring laser gyro, both of which show that light propagation can betray the rotation of the test apparatus. However, these concern angular speed measurement. The measurement of linear speed relative to a reference remote from and external to test apparatus is quite another matter.

If the West-East speed of a laboratory, owing to its rotation about the Earth's axis (some 350 m/s at 40^oN), shows up in speed-of-light anisotropy measurements confined within the laboratory, then it is submitted that this result would clearly refute Einstein's theory. Given such an experimental result, test apparatus otherwise fixed to the Earth and so constrained to share its acceleration, could, in principle, be replaced by similar apparatus caused to rotate once a day in the opposite sense and subjected to vertical acceleration of approximately 3 cm/s² for test periods commensurate with the small time it takes for light to traverse an optical test circuit. Such an applied motion will ensure that the system is compensated to satisfy the zero acceleration requirement of Einstein's hypothesis. Now, there is no logical way in which one can argue that the 350 m/s detection can be eliminated owing to these acceleration effects. On the contrary, the logic of relativity argues that the 350 m/s speed cannot be detected in either situation. The laws of physics and the speed-of-light measurements have to be the same for systems in relative non-accelerated motion. If 350 m/s difference in light speed is sensed and this cannot be connected with centrifugal acceleration at the Earth's surface or the Earth's centrifugal acceleration without dependence upon Earth radius, then Einstein's theory stands disproved.

All this can, of course, be dismissed as wishful thinking were it not for the fact that researchers persevere in experimental efforts to measure the cosmic speed anisotropy of light of several hundred km/s related to the sidereal frame and may well be stumbling over a detected anisotropy of a few hundred m/s in the Earth's inertial frame. The latter should be the focus of attention.

The author mentions the experiments of Townes [21] in his book, but more relevant today is an experiment reported by Brillet and Hall [15]. In a paper published in 1979 they claimed a null result which was 4,000 times more sensitive than the best previous measurement of light-speed anisotropy in space. Yet, consider what they say. A genuine spatial anisotropy would be evidenced by a laser- frequency shift as a vector amplitude at twice the rotation frequency of the table on which the test laser was mounted. The experiment gave a relevant signal of 17 Hz (2x10^-13 times the laser frequency) with approximately constant phase in the laboratory frame. For this reason it was classified as spurious and persistent but ignored because, when shifted by analysis over 12 and 24 hour periods, it gave no genuine indication of motion in the sidereal frame. The expected signal would indicate (v/c)²/2, where v is the speed of 190 m/s in the Earth frame, clearly an important result from the viewpoint of the comments above. It is noted that the author regards the Brillet and Hall experiment as needing interpretation to allow for anisotropy effects upon the angle of deflection at mirror surfaces moving relative to the light reference frame. These make the 190 m/s indication subject to adjustment and so leave the issue inconclusive.* However, the experiment to verify that the 350 m/s motion of a laboratory can be detected seems viable. It is crucial to Einstein's theory.
_______________________________________________________________
* The author did later undertake a detailed analysis to calculate the actual anisotropy effect indicated. It is fully reported in a paper published in 1982 under the title 'Mirror Reflection Effects in Light Speed Anisotropy Tests' [22]. It was shown that there is scope for misinterpreting measurement data if one does not take account of the effect of light-speed anisotropy on reflections from the curved mirror surfaces used in the Fabry-Perot etalon. It is found that the (0.5)(v/c)² factor derived from plane mirror reflection theory is not applicable, inasmuch as the mirror curvature can reduce that 0.5 factor substantially, thereby increasing the value v as measured. It was shown that the 17 Hz signal measured by Brillet and Hall could be consistent with a speed v of the order of 350 m/s. _______________________________________________________________
Note that one is seeking to verify an anisotropy in light speed of the order of 10^-6 the speed of light. Such a discrepancy between the speed of light, as measured East-West versus West-East, is of the same order as discrepancies now showing up in experiments comparing the speed of ultra-high energy photons and electrons. According to Einstein's mass formula for high speed electrons, an 11 Gev electron should move at a speed within 2 parts in 10⁹ that of light. Yet, as Brown et al [23] found, 7 Gev photons and 11 Gev electrons are both discrepant in this respect. The relative velocity difference compared with visible light is of the order of one part in a million, being, for the 11 Gev electrons, -1.3 +/- 2.7 times 10^-6 that of light.

It is submitted that if the electron speed is referenced on a non-rotating frame centred on the Earth's axis, then such discrepancies are to be expected. Yet, if a speed difference of 350 m/s shows up in such experiments, Einstein's theory is surely in trouble. (Note that 350 m/s is approximately 1.3 parts in a million of the 300,000 km/s speed of light.)

From this it would be correct to conclude that the author has come firmly to the position that, notwithstanding all the apparent successes of Einstein's theory when tested against its key experimental criteria, it will fail once it is accepted that the Earth's eastward speed can be measured by optical speed-of-light tests. The author further believes that the evidence is before us but that we are so entranced by relativity that it is being overlooked and not probed in depth for its true significance. For example, suppose the Brillet and Hall experiment were performed at the North pole. Would the persistent and spurious signal then be non-existent? One may alternatively wonder how a signal can be both spurious and persistent, unless it is regarded as spurious because there is no explanation for it consistent with Einstein's theory.

The Brillet and Hall experiment may be the forerunner of a conclusive test refuting Einstein's theory. It was reported in 1979. If it is verified by further experiment that the linear speed of a laboratory can be sensed by enclosed optical measurement relative to the Earth's inertial frame of reference, then Einstein's theory stands refuted. Two experiments would then help in the quest to support aether theory. Firstly, the optical test apparatus by which to sense light speed anisotropy should be flown along a line of latitude of say 40^oN to see if the speed of flight affects the basic 350 m/s indication. Secondly, the apparatus should be conveyed vertically (as by space shuttle) to see how the 350 m/s measurement changes with altitude. In particular, it would be interesting to see whether it increases over an initial altitude of say 100 km and then decreases suddenly to zero outside a zone of Earth influence corresponding to a region of aether drag."

THE VACUUM STRUCTURE HYPOTHESIS

At this stage it would help the reader to know the basis of the author's hypothesis by which the speed of light is insensitive to linear motion but, if measured relative to a rotating system, is affected by that rotation.

The following is taken from page 67 of 'Physics Unified'.

The vacuum state has a fluid-crystal-like form which develops as quasi-rigid lattice structure and permits an analogy with solid materials by imparting to the vacuum a pressure modulus or energy density modulus P, which relates to the propagation speed c' by the formula: c' = (P/ρ)^1/2 ............... (1) where ρ is the mass density of the lattice. Here c' is referenced on the universal inertial frame, which may be taken as that in which the cosmic background radiation is isotropic.

In undisturbed space remote from matter c' will be equal to the speed of light c that we measure in our material Earth frame, but, where we have a body of the lattice in linear motion at velocity v, some of the lattice substance will be shed to establish a counterflow at velocity u and ρ in (1) will thereby be reduced, making c' larger than c. Write:
n = c/c' ................... (2) where n is the refractive index in this region. Then, from (1) and (2) we see that n² is proportional to the mass density of the lattice.

We expect linear momentum of the vacuum medium to be zero and this means that, if the proportion k of the lattice is shed to provide the balancing flow, the following relation holds:
uk + v(1-k) = 0 ................. (3) Also: n² = 1 - k ................. (4) Combining (3) and (4), we have: u(1 - 1/n²) = v ................. (5)
Now, the expression given by (5) is the Fresnel drag coefficient and, as applied to the vacuum medium, it tells us that the speed of light c within a linearly-moving lattice is augmented by the velocity v, that is, by the velocity of the lattice. In other words, relative to the moving lattice (our Earth frame) the speed of light has the same value c in all directions, which we know is the case from the Michelson-Morley experiment.

This applies, however, to the translational motion of body Earth at velocity v and we now need to consider rotation. For rotation, as by an eastward speed in the laboratory, there is no corresponding counterflow motion because the symmetry of the spinning lattice system does not require any extra lattice displacement. A sphere can rotate in a perfect fluid without displacing the fluid.

It follows, therefore, that the propagation speed that is represented by equation (1) and which applies in the non-rotating inertial frame will be unaffected by Earth rotation. In other words, the eastward motion will need to be deducted from the velocity of light as measured within a laboratory rotating with the Earth. This means that the 350 m/s at 40^oN latitude will be present as a speed of light anisotropy in our experiments.

However, the Michelson-Morley experiment which is insensitive to such small anisotropy effects and experiments which are, on the other hand, sufficiently sensitive, but which are programmed to exclude all but cosmic motion anisotropy, will all be bound to signal null results.

Scientists have buried their heads in the sands and not seen why they should focus on sensing linear motion that occurs within a rotating system. They have built their theories as if they live in a world that does not rotate and tried to measure something that is affected by Earth rotation.

Physically Nature does not have a mind of its own or a philosophy that Einstein has imagined. It has physical form and, whether the reader likes the idea of a lattice aether or not, the proposal for a vacuum state of the kind just outlined does fit the experimental facts.

The reader may feel it wrong to revive the aether concept as if that is stepping back in time through a whole century of science, but we have no choice. It is better to be guided by the intuition of our forebears on the aether question than for us to scramble into the unknown and try to reconcoct some new form of abstract physics to replace the vacuum vacated by Einstein.

The author urges the reader to take to heart at what is here offered. Much of what is said elsewhere in this work will show the enormous amount of support which obliges belief in the structured vacuum, but first we need to add a little more to the arsenal available in the struggle to defeat the Einstein system.

THE FORGOTTEN EXPERIMENT

All physicists have heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment which dates back to the late 19th century. Very few physicists can recall any knowledge of the 1903 experiment performed by Trouton and Noble [24]. Yet the latter experiment was an electrical test analogous in objective, as important, and contemporary with, the optical test performed by Michelson and Morley.

In his early writings concerning the law of electrodynamics this author drew attention to the Trouton-Noble experiment, notably in a 1969 paper published in the Journal of the Franklin Institute [25] and in 'Physics without Einstein' published in the same year.

Later, in 1983, when the author left corporate employment and, in early retirement, became a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the University of Southampton in England, his first experimental project was a specially modified form of Trouton-Noble experiment.

More is said about this elsewhere in this work, but it is of immediate interest here to draw attention to a report which appeared in a leading English newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph of 20th January 1991. Undoubtedly there would have been more such media publicity at the time in U.S.A.

The article was titled: 'Einstein's flaws could be relative'. In reporting on this, the Science Correspondent explained how evidence that Einstein's theory of relativity may be flawed was emerging from an experiment in America. This was followed by an introductory account of what Einstein had proposed by his principle of relativity and how Einstein's pronouncements had been held as having 'incontrovertible backing from an ingenious experiment carried out in the 1880s by two American scientists named Michelson and Morley'.

The article explains how common sense should dictate the possibility of sensing our motion through space by speed-of-light anisotropy measurements and how astonishing it was that the Michelson-Morley experiment had shown otherwise. He goes on to say:

"Their experiment thus confirms Einstein's view that the speed of light - indeed, all the laws of physics - are the same no matter how the observer moves"

This is a curious twist of words, bearing in mind that Einstein's views did not come onto the scientific scene until 1905 and the Michelson-Morley experiment dates from the 1880s. One would think that here was Einstein predicting something which happily Michelson and Morley were later able to confirm! It is so easy for the public at large to get the wrong impression when they read reports presented in such enthusiastic style.

However, reverting to the newspaper article, it then reads:

Professor Howard Hayden at the University of Connecticut is one of the physicists who now claim there is a flaw in the interpretation of Michelson and Morley's results. He has revived an old British relativity experiment to test Einstein's theory - and is finding discrepancies."

Though Trouton and Noble are not mentioned, this was, in fact, a reference to their 1903 experiment. The article then reads:

"In Professor Hayden's experiment, two capacitors - which store electric charge - are suspended from a thread just one-tenth the thickness of a human hair in a vessel pumped free of air. Electric charge is then put into the capacitors.

If Einstein is right, nothing interesting should happen. But if he is wrong, then the charged capacitors will sometimes twist around on their thread. This will show that preferred frames of reference do, in fact, exist.

The reason is that in one direction the charge in the capacitors will be moving with the Earth's west-east rotation. The moving charge will create a feeble magnetic field, and in trying to minimize this field the capacitors will twist into a north-south direction. This will show that the capacitors have a preferred frame of reference.

The effect will be tiny. Professor Hayden expects a laser beam bounced off mirrors on the thread to move by less than one-tenth of an inch over a distance of 21 feet. The experiment has also been plagued by mysterious movements of the capacitors even when they are uncharged.

However, glimmerings of a defeat for Einstein are emerging. "I have seen movements of the capacitors consistent with a preferred frame of reference," says Professor Hayden. "I'm encouraged by the results, but I'm still some way short of being able to publish anything yet."

He admits that confirmation of his preliminary results would be highly controversial, given the status of Einstein:
"If I had a graduate student working on this, he'd probably never get a job unless the results agreed with relativity."
The reader may find it interesting to note the suggestion Professor Hayden makes concerning detection of the West-East motion. The original Trouton-Noble experiment was an effort to measure the Earth's 30 km/s motion around the sun. There is a fundamental difference between these two objectives, inasmuch as one involves a speed measurement on a spherical solid body rotating about a central axis of spin, whereas the other concerns the sensing of translational motion of that body through space.

We have already seen why, in terms of aether theory, there is a very significant physical difference between these two projects.

Einstein has preached the doctrine of the 'impossible' by relying on experiments which are of one category, whereas researchers more open to the 'possible' are getting positive results from experiments of a different category. Yet Einstein makes no exceptions by prescribing his 'doctrine of the impossible' and, if physics is to move forward as we enter the new energy age, we cannot afford to turn our backs on the 'possible'. That is too great a tribute to Einstein's memory as it converts relativity into a religion and technology is not based on religion.

The importance of reworking the Trouton-Noble experiment lies in the need for a better understanding of electrodynamic action. Optical experiments are not of primary interest in our search for new energy conversion technology, but electrodynamic interactions are very much of concern.

Indeed, by intruding in the field of electrodynamics in 1905 and prescribing rules of field transformation which purport to dominate the electrodynamic action, Einstein has done an enormous amount of damage in setting electrical science and power technology back more than half a century. The author makes this assertion in the knowledge that, just as there is mounting evidence to show the invalidity of Einstein's theory, there is mounting evidence to show that electrodynamic interactions, of a kind ruled out by Einstein's theory, as between heavy ion currents and electron currents can give access to a new energy source.

'The Physics of Creation' is not intended to be a book which discusses energy technology. The author intends to confine this work to pure physics and aether science, whilst including a final section which opens the debate on the scope for tapping aether energy as a practical spin-off.

However, the Trouton-Noble experiment and its implications are at the very heart of the physics needed to understand electrical energy processes and gravitation as indeed will have been seen from Part I of this work.

CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
In this LECTURE we have pointed to evidence that destroys Einstein's theory. The theory is invalid. Readers might say: "But what about time dilation and the experimental fact that mu-mesons live longer the faster they travel?" The answer to this is: "So, mu-mesons live longer, the faster they travel, and they happen to have more energy, the faster they travel. If they have more energy, is it surprising that they can withstand decay for a longer period? Would not Einstein himself be more likely to stay on his bicycle longer, if travelling at speed, than if he tried to pedal very slowly?"

In fact, one can progress step by step through every supposed piece of evidence that Einstein supporters can quote and one can show that there is no need for the relativistic doctrinaire explanation.

From the intellectual point of view, Einstein's theory may have a so-called elegance and formal mathematical quality, but they are hardly appreciated by physicists in general, who are not adept at mathematical wizardry. Even when those who are skilled in the manipulation of four-space equations, with their geodesics, Christoffel symbols and contracted Riemann tensors, put their bottom line formulations to the test, as by reference to planetary motion, they invariably come down to formulae written in a space of three dimensions. Astronomers do not use telescopes with four-space coordinate positioning.

It is as if to prove that what should be 3 equals 4 one needs a pair of 'four-space' spectacles that make 3 look like 4 and then one puts on a normal pair of spectacles to write down 4 and make one's experiments to then show that 4 is the quantity observed. Once the books are 'seen' to balance, that gives satisfaction at those 'magic' spectacles, but a wise man can see that they really obscure the truth!

Such comment may seem out of place in this scientific text, but it is hoped the reader will understand the strength of feeling which the author has developed over 45 years in witnessing the scientific world adhere to a doctrine that, as Dr. Essen reminds us, is either a 'joke or swindle'.

As part of this discussion to conclude this Part III, since the remainder of this work aims to present the author's theory without any new references made to Einstein, it is worthwhile restating the author's position on electromagnetic frames of reference.

(a) In a space region where 'aether' lattice structure is transported in linear translational motion for which there is an associated counterflow shed from that structure to assure linear momentum balance, then, apart from the effect of a minute oscillatory quantum jitter motion, the electromagnetic reference frame shifts from the absolute space frame to the inertial frame defined by that moving structure.

(b) Where a sphere of 'aether' lattice structure can rotate then, provided that spherical lattice form is homogeneous in sharing the rotation, rather than being broken into independent lattice elements which may move through non-rotating structure within the sphere, the electromagnetic reference frame will still, apart from the relative motion defined by that quantum jitter, be the inertial frame centred on the sphere.

(c) In a space region where 'aether' lattice structure is broken into independent lattice elements which have linear translational motion that has no associated counterflow, then the electromagnetic reference frame will be, in effect, an absolute frame of reference.

Considering linear momentum and angular momentum, as well as energy needed to sustain the internal kinetic energy of the vacuum system, the following circumstances apply.

For (a) above, there will be no evident linear momentum effects when the moving 'aether' lattice system is accelerated. However, energy will need to be transferred to correspond to the internal kinetic energy changes.

For (b) above, there will be an evident angular momentum change if the speed of rotation of the 'aether' lattice sphere changes and there will be a corresponding energy requirement.

For (c) above, there will be no evident linear momentum or energy effects in the 'aether' lattice filling the space between the independent lattice elements.

Now, all this might seem to be a very complicated scenario which Einstein avoided by rejecting the idea of an 'aether', but the reader will see that the 'aether' picture has given us a wealth of connections related to energy and momentum effects. The latter are important if we are to make sense of anomalous energy experiments and the connection with different electromagnetic reference frames affords additional information by which to interpret experiments.

If the reader has heard that Einstein did on the odd occasion speak favorably of the aether then it is relevant to refer to Einstein's 1952 own discussion of the subject in his fifteenth edition to his book 'Relativity'. Quoting from his argument:
"Science has taken over, from pre-scientific thought, the concepts space, time and material object .. and has modified them and rendered them more precise. Its first significant accomplishment was the development of Euclidean geometry, whose axiomatic formulation must not be allowed to blind us to its empirical origin. .... On particular, the three-dimensional nature of space as well as its Euclidean character are of empirical origin (it can be wholly filled by like constituted "cubes"). ... The second role of space and time was that of being an "inertial system". From all conceivable systems of reference, inertial systems were considered to be advantageous in that, with respect to them, the law of inertia claimed validity. ... If matter were to disappear, space and time alone would remain behind (as a kind of stage for physical happening). ... In the framework of classical physics, the concept of field appeared as an auxiliary concept, in cases in which matter was treated as a continuum. ... In accordance with the historical development of the field concept, where no matter was available there could exist no field. But in the first quarter of the nineteenth century it was shown that the phenomena of the interference and motion of light could be explained with astonishing clearness when light is regarded as a wave-field. ... It was thus felt necessary to introduce a field that could also exist in "empty space" in the absence of ponderable matter. ... One thus felt compelled , even in space which hitherto had been regarded as empty, to assume everywhere the existence of a form of matter, which was called "aether". .... it was first taken for granted that electromagnetic fields had to be interpreted as states of the aether... The aether theory brought with it the question: How does the aether behave from a mechanical point of view with respect to ponderable bodies? Does it take part in the motions of the bodies, or do its parts remain at rest relatively to each other? Many ingenious experiments were undertaken to decide this question. ... The results of all these experiments, except for one, the Michelson-Morley experiment, were explained by H. A. Lorentz on the assumption that the aether does not take part in the motions of ponderable bodies, and that the parts of the aether have no relative motions at all with respect to each other. Thus the aether appeared, as it were, as the embodiment of space absolutely at rest. ... But .... Lorentz accomplished still more. ... Concerning the experiment of Michelson and Morley, H. A. Lorentz showed that the result obtained at least does not contradict the theory of an aether at rest. ... In spite of all these beautiful successes the state of the theory was not yet wholly satisfactory, and for the following reasons. Classical mechanics, of which it could not be doubted that it holds with a close degree of approximation, teaches the equivalence of all inertial systems or inertial "spaces" for the formulation of natural laws... Electro-magnetic experiments and optical experiments taught the same thing with considerable accuracy. But the foundation of electromagnetic theory taught that a particular inertial system must be given preference, namely that of the luminiferous aether at rest. This view of the theoretical foundation was much too unsatisfactory. ... The answer to this question is the special theory of relativity."

If the reader can make sense of all that, he or she might conclude that this position taken by Einstein is too dogmatic. Admittedly, he does not say that there is no aether. Indeed, he says that Lorentz found a way of reconciling experiment with the fixed aether concept. However, he makes it very clear that the aether theory was, what he terms, 'unsatisfactory', because mechanics gave flexibility in the choice of inertial frames, whereas electromagnetic theory did not.

This argument makes no allowance for the fact that mechanics concerns substance comprising electrical particles and the principles of mechanics must derive from electromagnetic interactions. Nature does not allow us to choose at will a particular inertial frame as the frame governing physical interactions. In fact, the inertial frame of any particle system, including the aether charge present, is that unique frame centred by the collective interaction of all the electrical charges present.

Einstein seems to have assumed that the aether was provided for our benefit, as observers, to make, in our imagination, some sense of electromagnetic interactions. Then, since our preconceived notion about the aether poses problems, he ignores it or does away with it and substitutes a new 'viewing' principle.

One must realize that Nature fixes the applicable inertial frame assigned to any discrete electrical particle and that our task in physics is to understand how such particles interact at a distance, bearing in mind that numerous other electrical particles exist, whether or not we regard them as material or aethereal.

Any other explanation is unsatisfactory. The issue is not whether there is an aether, but, given that electric effects can be induced in what we perceive as empty space, how that medium, which is termed 'aether' for want of any better expression, participates in particle interactions. This is a research question and not one of weighing pros and cons to see what offers the best aesthetic qualities. In particular, we must not be deceived by Einstein's salesmanship in pointing to weakness in our knowledge of Nature's inner secrets. Our weakness in this does not impart strength to Einstein's own position, merely because he has become a critic.

If there were no aether there would be nothing to define the dimensions of space or time and the task in this work is to show why this is so.

If there were no aether there would be no territory, as yet uncharted, for us to explore in search of a new scientific solution to our impending energy crisis. Here I find it appropriate to quote a paragraph from the paper I wrote concerning the Silvertooth experiment [18]:

Relativistic doctrine has suppressed activity in this field , but the occasional glimmer of light sometimes gets through. Lanczos [26] suggests that the vacuum might be something tremendously agitated, in a state of constant vibration at extremely high frequencies. His book includes Einstein's original papers in synopsis form and reports on discussions with Einstein. He tells us how fortunate Einstein was to have Planck as the original editor of the journal in which all the important Einstein papers were published and says "Today none of these papers would see the light of day. They go so strongly against the establishment that any sober referee would vote against their publication."

It is also appropriate to note that in my August 1987 Letter to the Editor of 'Electronics and Wireless World' [8], already mentioned, I drew attention to Dr. Essen's statement in his October 1978 article [27] that:

"Space contains an unlimited amount of high frequency energy which could possibly be extracted and used with safety and efficiency."

So, you see, the game one plays in contesting Einstein's doctrines involves high stakes. The loser is the contestant who suffers ridicule or is simply ignored. The winner is the public at large, given that prospect of tapping energy from the aether. In a sense, therefore, this book 'The Physics of Creation' is the rule book by which to play this game and it remains to be seen if it rallies support from those budding scientists who will confront the energy issues of the future.

So far as Einstein's theory is concerned, this LECTURE has said all that need be said. His theory is irrelevant and invalid and we must now face up to the fact that experiment and observation have, as we have seen, shown that this is so! Nevertheless, given that theoretical physicists have become so committed to the relativistic doctrine, I doubt if what is said above will have much impact. One is therefore tempted to let Einstein's own account of his theory, as written for a readership having no more than a High School education, provide what purports to be a clear account of his theory. I summarize that account as a separate LECTURE No. IIIc, leaving the reader to weigh that against my message in Parts I, II, IV and V of this work and then judge on the merits of including Einstein's doctrines in the curriculum of a physics education.

REFERENCES

[1] P. Gerber, Zeitschrift f. Math. u. Phys., 43 93 (1898).
[2] A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 49 769 (1916).
[3] J. H. Jeans, Nature 70 101 (June 1904).
[4] W. C. D. Whetham, "The Recent Development of Physical Science", John Murray, London, p. 290, 1904.
[5] A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 17 891-921 (1905).
[6] H. A. Lorentz, Proc. Acad. Sc. Amsterdam, 6 809 (1904).
[7] E. F. Guinan and F. P. Maloney, Astrophysical Journal 90 1519-28 (1985).
[8] H. Aspden, Electronics and Wireless World, p. 786 (1987).
[9] E. W. Silvertooth, Nature, 322 590 (1986).
[10] L. Essen, Electronics and Wireless World, 94 126-127 (1988).
[11] A. A. Michelson, H. G. Gale and F. Pearson, Astrophysical Journal, 61 140 (1925)
[12] G. Sagnac, Comptes Rendus, 157, pp. 708 and 1410 (1913).
[13] R. F. C. Vessor and M. W. Levine, General Relativity and Gravitation, 10 181-204 (1979).
[14] D. R. Gagnon, D. G. Torr, P. T. Kolen and T. Chang, Physical Review A, 38 1767-1772 (1988).
[15] A. Brillet and J. L. Hall, Physical Review Letters, 42 549 (1979).
[16] D. G. Torr and P. Kolen, 'Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants II', B. N. Taylor and W. D. Phillips, Eds., Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 617, 675-679 (1984).
[17] E. W. Silvertooth, Speculations in Science and Technology, 10 3 (1987).
[18] H. Aspden, Speculations in Science and Technlogy, 10 9-12 (1987).
[19] J. P. Wesley, 'Progess in Space-Time Physics 1987', Benjamin Wesley, 7712 Blumberg, Germany, pp. 11-15 (1987).
[20] H. Aspden, Speculations in Science and Technology, <6>, 199-202 (1983).
[21] H. Aspden, 'Physics Unified', Sabberton, P.O. Box 35, Southampton, England, p. 54 (1980). [Reference to J. P. Cedarholm, G. F. Bland and C. H. Townes, Physical Review Letters, 1 342 (1958).
[22] H. Aspden, Speculations in Science and Technology, 5 421-431 (1982).
[23] B. C. Brown, C. E. Masek, T. Maung, E. S. Miller and W. Vernon, Physical Review Letters, 30 763 (1973).
[24] F. T. Trouton and R. H. Noble, Proc. Royal Soc., 72 132 (1903).
[25] H. Aspden, Jour. Franklin Inst., 287 179 (1969).
[26] C. Lanczos, 'The Einstein Decade (1905-19150', pp. xiii and 34 , Elek Science, London (1974).
[27] L. Essen, Wireless World, 83 44-45 (October, 1978)

Press LECTURE IIIa to revert to that Lecture if it was not read earlier.

Press 'The Physics of Creation' to return to its index page.

Press to return to the main site index.