An unusual physics story that I feel all students of science should hear
Like you, I was raised as a child to believe that in the world of science Albert Einstein was a genius who was scientifically infallible. I now know that Einstein was very clever, but from my readings I think that he was also an opportunistic and less forthright person than we might imagine. For example, when he announced his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 Einstein did not acknowledge that a fellow scientist by the name of Lorentz had developed and announced a very similar relativity model in 1904, relating to electron theory. The mathematical comparisons are much the same as each other. Einstein said he was not aware of this, despite the fact that both men had known each other well for many years. I am also suggesting in this blog that Einstein scientifically cut corners with reality science in order to make things ‘fit’ with his modelling. This means that in my opinion, Einstein knowingly released his two relativity models in the realisation that they were both incomplete, and that his ideas relating to objects, movement, space and time were always likely to never be able to embrace non-local (non – physical) ‘things’. Such things include immobile ether that is not testable or measurable in a lab. Furthermore Einstein set aside other important and already commonly known scientific theories and experiments around that time as well. These include the Michelson–Morley experiment in the United States of America in 1887 (that did detect motion relative to space) as well as the ideas of Maxwell, Lorentz and Poincare.
If any physics theory detects ether it automatically contradicts Einstein’s Special Relativity theory. General Relativity treats space as an ether but the idea of motion cannot be applied to it. So according to General Relativity theory, even though the earth is orbiting our sun, at tremendous speed, and orbiting the centre of our Galaxy at even greater speed, it must be assumed that the earth is at rest relative to space itself. This has historically been the conundrum for relativity theorists and experimentalists. It is impossible to have ether in one model and not in the other at the same time with respect to the same theory. By this I mean as a single unity model of everything (all that ‘IS’) from such a contradiction of modeling.
These words form the basis of my idea that follow throughout this text in this blog. These are that there never was a nul result with the Michelson and Morley experiment as many contemporary physicists today claim. In other words I am saying that something ‘strange’ seems to prevail in the laboratories of contemporary physics. Furthermore it has existed for more than a century now.
Today I wish to talk to you about both the history and the subsequent consequences of Einstein making what appears to be short-sighted decisions in the manner that I have described. Einstein seemed to be determined that his theories could be physically tested in a lab and as such traditional physic ether theory was set aside by him. Einstein wanted nothing unexplainable (metaphysical) in his theories, and traditional ether theory was considered to be just that. Ether is an immobile theory that (itself) is without time. Movement between objects in the ether is with time. Furthermore because ether has no knowable features it has always automatically been known in the physics community that it was impossible to test ether theory in a lab anyway.
An introductory discussion
Ether theory was first postulated by Isaac Newton in the seventeenth century and continued to be popularly embraced by physicists in their scientific modelling up to the end of the nineteenth century. Ether theory is still supported by some members of the physics community today and it is referred to as neo-Lorentzian Relativity Theory or sometimes the Lorentz Ether Theory. This is important. Here is what Newton had to say about his concept of ether:
“He wrote, “I do not know what this Aether is”, but that if it consists of particles then they must be exceedingly smaller than those of Air, or even than those of Light: The exceeding smallness of its Particles may contribute to the greatness of the force by which those Particles may recede from one another, and thereby make that Medium exceedingly more rare and elastic than Air, and by consequence exceedingly less able to resist the motions of Projectiles, and exceedingly more able to press upon gross Bodies, by endeavoring to expand itself.”
The reason why a minority of physicists continue to believe in ether theory today is because they believe that there are serious shortcomings in Einstein’s relativity modelling as I earlier alleged. They see his physics as being both incomplete and incorrect along the lines that I have stated above rather than an informational process. Let’s have a look at some of these concerns that might exist between scientists with respect to these claims.
Einstein had linked his models to light as his primary point of reference for his modelling. Some physicists felt that his theory did not stand up to deeper scientific scrutiny, nor did his idea of linking light with time. However, Einstein was correct in defining the speed of light as being 300,000 km/s because this is exactly the speed that Maxwell had determined it to be with his theory of electromagnetism in the middle of the eighteenth century. The big difference between the two, however, is that Einstein calculated his light speed as being that within a vacuum of space-time, whilst Maxwell and other prominent scientists at the time (such as Fitzgerald, Poincare and Lorentz) felt otherwise. They felt that Maxwell’s determination of the speed of light should be related to an electromagnetic field existing within the immobile ether frame.
For purposes of convenience I refer you to the Wikipedia article that follows relating to light bearing (luminiferous) ether. This additional information is inserted to help fill in the gaps relating to the history and allied debate that I am presenting to you.
“… Lorentz (with others assisting) had spent nearly thirteen years developing his electron relativity ether theory. This theory tried to explain the null result of an earlier (1887) physics experiment to determine if the earth was moving in space”.
“In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether, aether, or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the postulated medium for the propagation of light. It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do. The assumption of a spatial plenum of luminiferous aether, rather than a spatial vacuum, provided the theoretical medium that was required by wave theories of light.
The concept was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects. As the nature of light was explored, especially in the 19th century, the physical qualities required of the aether became increasingly contradictory. By the late 1800s, the existence of the aether was being questioned, although there was no physical theory to replace it.
The (alleged) negative outcome of the Michelson–Morley (M+M) experiment suggested that the aether was non-existent. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether. A major breakthrough was the theory of relativity, which could explain why the M+M experiment failed to see aether, but was more broadly interpreted to suggest that it wasn’t needed by Einstein. (I emboldened). The Michelson-Morley experiment, along with the black-body radiator and photoelectric effect, was a key experiment in the development of modern physics, which includes both relativity and quantum theory, the latter of which explains the wave-like nature of light.
The modern understanding is that heat radiation is, like light, electromagnetic radiation. However, Newton viewed heat and light as two different phenomena. He believed heat vibrations to be excited “when a Ray of Light falls upon the Surface of any pellucid Body.” The problem for traditional ether theory is that it does not bring to account for the variations of speed which are seen emanating from stars, galaxies and similar large objects that cause the flow of space past the earth to vary in speed.
Thus it follows that the 1887 M+M . experiment was to demonstrate that “… if the earth was acting like a spaceship moving through Lorentz’s concept of an invisible and massless cosmic ether at the speed of light in the direction of the earth’s motion, then it should be lower than it is in a direction at right angles to this. By measuring these speeds it should be possible to detect the earth’s absolute velocity relative to the ether. The velocity of the earth’s orbit around the sun is around 30 km/s. Any motion through the ether should be at least as much at some time of the night or day of the year”.
I suggest that in view of the then widely accepted ether theory in the scientific community (from such highly respected physicists such as Maxwell, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincare, and Heaviside), then single supposed null result from just one experiment should have raised a much more serious debate in the physics community than what it did at the time.
I allege that such lack of serious debate encouraged Einstein to take charge of the debate by introducing materialistic Relativity models that for all intents and purposes sidelined any hint of there being an invisible, motionless and without time ether. Some theorists such as Lorentz and Poincare retained doubts about Einstein’s two theories (movement of small objects in Special Relativity and large objects in General Relativity respectively). This state of doubt amongst prominent physicist remained all the while Einstein was effectively promoting his two new theories by means of tertiary lectures and the wider global media.
So then I ask the question “How is it that Lorentz, Poincare and other eminent physicists at the time withheld a seriously challenge to Einsteins theories?” Especially since the maths supporting Einstein’s modelling was almost the same as that Lorentz had formulated and publicly presented in Holland in 1904. [Einstein released his special relativity theory in September 1905]. It is likely this was because Einstein’s ideas were easier to understand and explain, and that in turn quickly captured the imagination of scientists as well as the wider population at large. This is notwithstanding the fact that Einstein’s Special Relativity model that was publicly released in 1905 preceded his General Relativity model that was first published in 1916.
This collective acceptance by scientists of Einstein’s relativity models set the scene for the monumental spread and acceptance of Einstein’s Special Relativity and General Relativity Models across the world. Furthermore as I indicated earlier Einstein’s models are still vigorously defended in the international physics community today. It seems to me that the holistic nature of the ether/electron relativity theory that was promoted by Lorentz and his supporters is one that may have eventually more meaningful led to a physics theory of everything.
More about the Michelson and Morely experiment and the first hint that Einstein may have seriously erred with his Relativity modelling
More about the Michelson and Morely experiment and the first hint that Einstein may have seriously erred with his Relativity modellingMore about the Michelson and Morely experiment and the first hint that Einstein may have seriously erred with his Relativity modelling
More about the Michelson and Morely experimentAs an introduction to this section I have selectively cut and pasted a section of a Wikipedia article that I feel might be useful to you to better understand the wider debate in this area.I have emboldened what I consider to be key words and sections in this article. It provides insight into the substantial degree of confusion and scientific disagreement disagreement between physicists around the time of the experiment together with the following text thereafter.. As I earlier explained it is this disarray amongst scientists that is the focal point of my message to you today. The quotation also supports the reason why I have entitled this blog ‘The day science lost its way’. Einstein publicly released his Special Relativity model on September 26th 1905.
“Albert A. Michelson (1881) tried to measure the relative motion of the Earth and ether (Aether-Wind), as it was expected in Fresnel’s theory, by using an interferometer. He could not determine any relative motion, so he interpreted the result as a confirmation of the thesis of Stokes… However, Lorentz (1886) showed Michelson’s calculations were wrong and that he had overestimated the accuracy of the measurement. This, together with the large margin of error, made the result of Michelson’s experiment inconclusive. In addition, Lorentz showed that Stokes’ completely dragged aether led to contradictory consequences, and therefore he supported an aether theory similar to Fresnel’s… To check Fresnel’s theory again, Michelson and Edward W. Morley (1886) performed a repetition of the Fizeau experiment. Fresnel’s dragging coefficient was confirmed very exactly on that occasion, and Michelson was now of the opinion that Fresnel’s stationary aether theory was correct… To clarify the situation, Michelson and Morley (1887) repeated Michelson’s 1881-experiment, and they substantially increased the accuracy of the measurement. However, this now famous Michelson–Morley experiment again yielded a (seemingly) negative result, that is, no motion of the apparatus through the ether was detected (although the Earth’s velocity is 60 km/s different in the northern winter from summer). So the physicists were confronted with two seemingly contradictory experiments: the 1886 experiment as an apparent confirmation of Fresnel’s stationary ether, and the 1887 experiment as an apparent confirmation of Stokes’ completely dragged ether…” (I emboldened). Source
The Michelson – Morely experiment was about determining the speed of the earth through space and the apparatus needed to achieve this objective is called an interferometer. Interferometers are designed to reflect light beams into reflecting mirrors in order to monitor movement and are highly sensitive to any form of external interference. The apparatus concerned had rigid arms extending from its sides as part of the measuring process. Also keep in mind that the experiment was conducted in 1887 and so the apparatus was obviously not as sophisticated as it would be today. Once again what is more important with these words is that the so-called null result was not an absolute null result at all. What actually happened was that the results, although being seemingly trivial to us, fluctuated across a wide range from 5 to 15 k/s per second. At that time speed was determined by Newtonian mathematical calculus which explains the workings of the universe) as it relates to physics that is in variance with other mathematical modelling employed in science.
If you are technically minded and you would like to know a little more about the null result you will find where I have broadly described the mechanics involved in the general reference section of this blog. It is the only item in this section. I decided to treat this area of discussion separately this way because I feel that all my readers may not be interested in too much technical detail. Furthermore this detail is on the periphery of my primary message anyway.
Only Einstein would have known the reason why he moved from a traditional Newtonian ether type theory to his two mechanical models of relativity. This is despite the wide ranging scientific wisdom and experience of his peers that existed around him at the time. I believe that Einstein embarked upon his new relativity theories knowing full well that Lorentz and other scientists had been working for many years developing their own relativity theories. These other theories were based upon the original electricity/magnetism model theorised by Maxwell which would later become electro-magnetic theory. Einstein ‘borrowed’ ideas from Lorentz with respect to his electron relativity theory in order to make his model ‘work’.
I feel that Einstein should have realised these repeated experiments were telling him something was amiss and they were not just aberrations relating to the interferometer apparatus of the day such as in the M+M experiment. Additionally, the important 1913 Sagnac experiment* is another example of what I am talking about as well as the highly significant findings of Dayton Miller from the mid 1920s to the mid 1930’s
. Keeping in mind what I have said so far I feel that Miller’s unfortunate experiences within his physics profession epitomise the many difficulties, contradictions and inter scientist disharmony that prevails in contemporary science today. Despite his negative experience with his peers, Miller was still able to successfully defend his interferometer results for the remainder of his life. Miller remained confident of what he had been saying all of this time because he had repeated the M+M type experiment for a number of times. This is relative to him determining the speed and direction for the motion of the earth relative to space (ether). Miller died in 1941. However, Miller was never able to achieve the high degree of recognition that many of his peers felt that he deserved at the time. Many physicists today feel this way as well. The ideas and scientific experiences of Miller dominate my discussion for the remainder of this blog.
*This is a very good example of the Sagnac experiment. However, it is linked to the theme of geocentrism, that I disagree with. You will find geocentrism is only talked about at the end of the video. I have included this link because of the professional manner in which the presenter talks about the Sagnac experiment.
In defence of the Dayton Miller ether experiment
Since 1933 many other interferometer and similar experiments relating to the same ether wind phenomenon (like Cahill, Morris and Ives) have been conducted with positive results. However, the original 1887 Michelson – Morley experiment must remain the defining (alleged) negative experiment relating to both the historical and contemporary ether-wind physics controversy. In this respect probably the most important statement made by any physicists in defence of Millers findings originated from Albert Einstein. You should take a careful note of not only what Einstein said but also their relevance to the longstanding dispute within the physics which is the purpose of this blog in the first place. I also feel that you should consider why it is that this unfortunate turn of historical events has been allowed to become so historically toxic in the scienctific community.
“My opinion about Miller’s experiment (referring to Millers reassessment of Michelson – Morley experiment) is as follows… Should the positive result be confirmed (for unsatisfactory reasons it eventually wasn’t), then the special theory of relativity, and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain. However, they would have to be a significantly different theory”
Einstein means from these words that there would need to be a different type of relativity theory altogether.
I further affirm Einstein’s words in this area in my blog entitled ‘The great ether debate’. Keep in mind in this blog that Einstein was talking about ether with respect to his General Relativity model. I contend that it is not appropriate to say when you are talking about ‘contents’ relating to any eventual theory of everything that you embrace the concept of ether on one hand and deny it on the other.
For some reason Dayton Millers experimental ether results were repeatedly rejected by his peers and so they never formally gained a foothold in international mainstream physics. The reviewers assessing Millers work said that they had rejected Miller’s experimental results for two reasons. The first reason was that Miller had superficially erred with a section of his mathematical presentation supporting his endeavours (which he easily and quickly rectified). The second and more significant reason was that in order to demonstrate the full meaning of his experimental findings (on a normal scale they might other wise seem minimal), Miller had to multiply his measured speed by a factor that would make his final outcomes (values) compatible with the orbital speed of the earth. This was not difficult, nor was it unusual physics practice to do such things at that time.
The problem was that Miller did not have a theory to explain why this factor was needed. This lack of theoretical justification for this factor rendered his results as being suspect to his critics. Millers supporters believed at the time, as Miller himself did also, that these two reasons were trivial with respect to the wider scientific importance of what Miller had achieved with his efforts for the wider science community. The experiment could have become a monumental step forward for physics for generations to come. With these words I am saying that it was Millers hostile peers who were responsible for this subsequent major interruption of the advancement of science throughout the world. I further suggest that the difficulties within the scientific community now would be a much fewer problem today than they are if this more enlightened attitude by Millers peers had been adopted.
My closing statement
As you consider this blog, I request that you not only keep Miller’s story in mind but also all the other professional scientists who over time have attempted to influence the international physics community to honourably and transparently reassess historical interferometer results. Whilst I have only cited three physicists there are hundred of like minded professional scientists over the decades who have recorded similar positive results as these three scientists. Furthermore their respective findings are not always for the same reasons either. If you are a physics student I urge you to conduct your own research with respect to the history and scientific evolution of Einstein’s Special and General Relativity theories. If you do this I especially suggest that you consider the robust nature of the debate between the pro and anti ether theorists and experimentalists. If you take this opportunity to do so you will see how the theorists have dominated and overly influenced the debate over nearly all of the time since Einstein released his two relativity models. This is in lieu of the experimentalists conducting the field research.
Apart from the general reference I have cited I have also included a general reference area that provides specific information and links for you to consider. This is as well as the inclusion of four (extract) commentaries that I feel might give you greater confidence to the veracity of my general line of thinking in this blog. I urge you to see my general line of thinking as being more important in this blog rather than the descriptive elements of my ideas, which were never meant to be other than indicative information on your behalf in the first place. This means that elementary errors here are to be considered to being being inevitable in a presentation of this type. My formal ideas relating to the Michelson and Morely and the associated ether debate are incorporated in my blog entitled “A statement with respect to the 1887 Michelson and Morley Ether experiment” including its supporting links. It is my opinion that any unified theory of physics can only be described and understood by means of holistic Informational Process models.
Greater detail with respect to the technical aspects of the M+M experiment
Here I will talk about why Lorentz and other scientists at the time thought the way they did about both the insignificant result of the Michelson – Morely experiment and the fluctuations of readings of the interferometer itself for the following reasons. In physics there is phenomenon called contraction of rigid poles with the process of movement, as well as time dilation. Time dilation is about the mechanical movements of clocks (not related to their outer casings). Mechanical movements in clocks (let’s say behaviour) are now known to behave differently in different frames of reference. An extreme analogy of this phenomenon is this. Say you had a twin sister or brother and you decided to visit the other side of the universe and return in a rocket.
Physics can now demonstrate that upon your return you would look significantly younger than your twin who remained on earth. What has happened is that you, together with the mechanism of the clock inside the rocket have not slowed down with reference to the inside of the rocket itself. However, you and the movement of the clock have both slowed down in relation to a clock (and your twin) on earth because they in are different in frames of reference, one being the earth and the other the inside of the rocket
A similar analogy applies with clocks inside and outside the ether frame of`reference. A rigid rod contracts in a state of motion for similar reasons to the rocket analogy and these reasons seem to relate to some sort of distortion of molecular forces occurring within rods when they move. Rods materially change in other ways as well. I will provide you with an analogy to what I mean by this. Imagine an ordinary domestic broomstick with two square plates centrally nailed to each end of the broomstick. Now stand the broomstick vertically on end and then place a five kilogram lead ball on the top plate of the vertical broomstick. The weight of the lead ball then partly contracts the length of the broomstick and in doing so puts outward pressure on the centre of the broomstick which then causes it to expand. A transfer of energy has taken place.
This change means that the mechanism of the interferometer (akin to the mechanism of a clock), together with the molecular forces therein, change, and furthermore this same phenomenon includes the rigid arms of the interferometer. They are contracting in relation to the object being monitored in space as well as the rigid substructure of the interferometer itself that additionally sits on a firm concrete or rock foundational base. This means that molecular forces are at play with all phenomena relating to the experiment. By this I mean the moving interferometer relating to different frames of reference.
Whilst to you and me such minuscule movements may seem trivial, in terms of the measuring process of the interferometer it is significant. I think it is worth noting that Lorentz in his electron theory defined these molecular forces as being the gaps between electrons within rigid rods that expand and contract with movement. Furthermore it was from this movement process that Lorentz then decided to relate this movement to the ether frame of reference itself, which he then called ether local-time, or real time. This is the frame of reference from which the physics terminology ‘time dilation’ originated.
In summary, it seemed to Lorentz as well as some of his associates (as well as some scientists today) that it was the contraction of the rigid arms of the interferometer in the Michelson – Morley experiment, together with associated time dilation affect that was responsible for the anomaly. This is the anomaly perceived in the measuring effect relating to the interferometer. Additionally this is along the lines of the analogy I have just given, that made most of the difference in establishing if the Michelson – Morley experiment was a valid one or not. As I suggested earlier, it is possible that Newtonian mathematical interpretation played a negative role in this measuring perception as well.
I believe that because clock space-time is not specifically relevant in an absolute time ether frame of reference (but dilation local-time is), then velocity with respect to space time is not relevant and absolute ether time is not relevant either. Velocity in ether time is only relevant to moving objects within this inertial frame of reference and these objects are not directly connected to the ether. Such objects move in a concurrent relationship with it and not to it. Ether time is regarded as being related to rigid rod contraction relating to movement as I discussed a little earlier.
The mechanical mechanisms of clocks behave differently in space-time ether medium as well because of the phenomenon of dilation. In my opinion this does not mean that Einstein’s relativity models are completely incorrect. I think that his preliminary intentions before he published his Special Relativity model in 1905 were contextually correct, in terms of both of his two new theories original frames of reference. However, it seems to me that he was unable to effectively separate out key elements of Lorentz’s original electron/ether theory and build them into his own two relativity theories. What has happened is that by removing Lorentz concept of an immobile ether Einstein later found he had to reintroduce it again in order to make his 1915 general relativity model make sense.
This fact is difficult to find in contemporary and mainstream literature. It is for this reason I support my words by both quoting Einstein’s statement about the subject as well as hear his confirming words on the matter in a 1920 video clip.
“…The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.
But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever…”
Allied descriptive reference material
1 The names and professional scientific backgrounds of the scientists that I have talked about or I am informally acknowledging in this blog are Dayton Miller, Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincare, George Fitzgerald, Oliver Hilviside, Herbert Ives and Albert Einstein.
2 I have hyper-linked three videos that I feel would be of assistance to you. These videos are:
2.1 One relating to why light should not be considered as a primary frame of reference in physics. You will also hear about why Lorentz Transformation theory is so important in understanding hidden (metaphysical type) connections existing between infinite numbers of individual frames of reference of both a physical and metaphysical sub-quantum nature – which implies reality.
2.2 A down-to-earth video that talks about what ether is (but not necessarily in the same frame of reference that Lorentz talked about it.).
2.3 If you believe that time is not a meaningless physical concept you may also find Barbour’s video about time to be of interest. Barbour is one of the most respected scientists in the world with regard to this topic.
3. The following text seems to provide sound reasons as to why Einstein was wrong and why Newton was right regarding the speed of gravity with respect to his concept of ether. You will also find many of the points talked about in the text align with my beliefs regarding the subject as well.
“The Speed of Gravity: Why Einstein Was Wrong and Newton Was Right
Published Nov. 30, 2012 by Michael Suede
It may surprise you to learn that the speed of gravity is something of an ongoing debate among many cosmologists today.
The textbook answer to the question “what is the speed of gravity?” is that it propagates at the speed of light. This answer is derived from Einstein’s version of relativity, which demands that nothing be able to propagate faster than the speed of light. Yet there is a large body of physical evidence that contradicts this theoretical assertion.
In 1998, physicist Tom Van Flandern authored a paper in Physics Letters A that remains one of the best refutations of Einstein’s version of relativity ever published. Van Flandern argues that Hendrik Lorentz’s version of relativity, which incorporates an aether that all matter moves through, is more correct than Einstein’s version, based on experimental observations about the speed of gravity. Lorentz and Einstein’s versions of relativity are actually very similar. The main difference being that the speed of light is not a limiting factor in Lorentz’s version of relativity. Van Flandern argues that the speed of gravity is far faster than the speed of light, just as Newton’s laws describe it to be. Newton’s laws declare gravity to propagate instantaneously.
I’m sure by now you may be wondering what kind of proof does Van Flandern have to offer? Van Flandern starts out by demonstrating that the visible light arriving from the Sun to Earth comes from a measurably different location in the sky than the point that the Earth is accelerating towards in space. This is because light propagates at light speed, while gravity propagates at infinite speed. The fact that the Earth is not accelerating toward the visible location of the Sun, but rather 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun (where the Sun will visibly be 8.3 minutes in the future) is very strong evidence against gravity propagating at the speed of light. This same light delay effect is seen in the positions of stars as well.
If gravity propagated between the Sun and the Earth at the same speed as visible light, the Earth would double the distance from the Sun in 1200 years, which obviously isn’t happening. Many other notable physicists besides Newton and Lorentz also concluded that orbital calculations must be made using an infinite speed of gravity. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington’s orbital calculations rely on gravity having an infinite speed, and Pierre-Simon Laplace calculated gravity to have a speed of at least 10^8 times the speed of light.
Van Flandern goes on to discuss GPS clocks, which are often cited as being proof positive of Einstein’s relativity. It may surprise you, but the GPS system doesn’t actually use Einstein’s field equations. In fact, this paper by the U.S. Naval Observatory tells us that, while incorporating Einstein’s equations into the system may slightly improve accuracy, the system itself doesn’t rely on them at all. To quote the opening line of the paper, “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require.”
Van Flandern explains why this is so:
Finally, the Global Positioning System (GPS) showed the remarkable fact that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites moving at high speeds in different directions could be simultaneously and continuously synchronized with each other and with all ground clocks. No “relativity of simultaneity” corrections, as required by SR, were needed. This too seemed initially to falsify SR. But on further inspection, continually changing synchronization corrections for each clock exist such that the predictions of SR are fulfilled for any local co-moving frame. To avoid the embarrassment of that complexity, GPS analysis is now done exclusively in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field). And the pre-launch adjustment of clock rates to compensate for relativistic effects then hides the fact that all orbiting satellite clocks would be seen to tick slower than ground clocks if not rate-compensated for their orbital motion, and that no reciprocity would exist when satellites view ground clocks.
Van Flandern also discusses the famous Michelson-Morely experiment, the Michelson-Gale experiment, and the Sagnac experiment, which are often cited as discrediting Lorentz’s version of relativity. The truth of the matter is that Lorentz’s version of relativity can easily account for the observations if one simply assumes a local gravity field with preferred frame for local observers, rather than a universal gravity field. Further, at the time, the wave nature of matter has not yet been discovered by Louis de Broglie.
Van Flandern concludes his paper by saying:
Near the end of his career, Lorentz is quoted as having graciously conceded the contest: “My theory can obtain all the same results as special relativity, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” (private communication from C.O. Alley) Today, with hindsight, we might make a somewhat different assessment: “Special relativity can explain all the experimental results in Table II that Lorentzian relativity can, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” Even so, SR cannot explain the faster-than-light propagation of gravity, although LR readily can.
We conclude that the speed of gravity may provide the new insight that physics has been awaiting to lead the way to unification of the fundamental forces.
If this article has piqued your interest in alternative cosmology, please set some time aside to watch the Thunderbolts of the Gods youtube video. I feel that this video might influence your thinking with respect to our universe and how it might work in the manner that it does as well. I do not follow the debate well enough to offer comment on it in this youtube video.
4. In this respect I also suggest that you acquaint yourself with a book I recently imported from the United States of America. The book “The Einstein Myth and the IVES Papers. A counter revolution in Physics”, considers the ideas of Ives as to how he felt Einstein’s Relativity theories might have been inappropriately evolving between the periods of the 1920s and late 1940s. You will note that I have cited Ives in the text.
The following are the four quotes supporting Dayton Miller that I cited earlier
“… >> While Miller had a rough time convincing some of his contemporaries about the reality of his ether measurements, he clearly could not be ignored in this regard. As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no ‘outsider’. While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein. His work employed light-beam interferometers of the same type used by Michelson-Morley, but of a more sensitive construction, with a significantly longer light-beam path. He periodically took the device high atop Mt. Wilson (above 6,000′ elevation), where Earth-entrained ether-theory predicted the ether would move at a faster speed than close to sea-level. While he was alive, Miller’s work could not be fundamentally undermined by the critics. However, towards the end of his life, he was subject to isolation as his ether measurements were simply ignored by the larger world of physics, then captivated by Einstein’s relativity theory.>>>”
“Dayton Miller’s 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry. Other positive ether-detection experiments have been undertaken, such as the work of Sagnac (1913) and Michelson and Gale (1925), documenting the existence in light-speed variations (c+v > c-v) ….” [my addition, Fizeau verified this using moving water and a light beam]
“What is it with scientists, why does “unacceptable” data cause the destruction of a researcher’s work and their life…
Theory is just made up BS, its the facts, that count, the results of experiment and observation…. the theory as history has shown so many times in science is just made up and should be easily discarded… never…”
Quote 4 (probably derived form a professional scientist)
“…>> Miller’s observations were also consistent through the long period of his measurements. He noted, when his data were plotted on sidereal time, they produced “…a very striking consistency of their principal characteristics…for azimuth and magnitude… as though they were related to a common cause… The observed effect is dependent upon sidereal time and is independent of diurnal and seasonal changes of temperature and other terrestrial causes, and…is a cosmical phenomenon.” (Miller 1933, p.231)
Poor bloke…. he found the spin alright…. and just got destroyed for excellent work and telling the truth. Such is the illusion Einstein has created over the whole world…… amazing.
“>> There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.” (Clark 1971”,
>> precautions taken to eliminate effects of temperature and flexure disturbances were effective. The results gave no displacement as great as one-fifteenth of that to be expected on the supposition of an effect due to a motion of the solar system of three hundred kilometres per second. These results are differences between the displacements observed at maximum and minimum at sidereal times, the directions corresponding to … calculations of the supposed velocity of the solar system. A supplementary series of observations made in directions half-way between gave similar results.” (Michelson, Pease, Pearson 1929)
One fifteenth of 300 km/sec. is 20 km/sec., a result the authors dismissed as they apparently had discarded the concept of an Earth-entrained ether, which would move more slowly closer to sea level. A similar result of 24 km/sec. was achieved by the team of Kennedy-Thorndike in 1932, however they also dismissed the concept of an entrained ether and, consequently, their own measured result: “In view of relative velocities amounting to thousands of kilometres per second known to exist among the nebulae, this can scarcely be regarded as other than a clear null result”. This incredible statement serves to illustrate how deeply ingrained was the concept of a static ether. >>>”
End of quotes.
Alternative links that indirectly complement this blog:
This blog forms a unit of information with respect to my conceptual unity theory.