The day science lost its way

A physics story that I feel my readers should know a little more about

Abstract

I believe that there are sound anecdotal reasons to suggest that both Einstein’s Relativity models are mostly not his thoughts at all. Furthermore I believe that our contemporary physics community has known this for more than a century. Additionally, I feel that over many decades both the scientific community and the media have made no serious effort to publicly investigate and subsequently clarify or deny this alleged and longstanding misapprehension. This document looks at the wide-ranging evidence that I feel supports my allegations.

I briefly talk about the role of different highly respected physicists in the development of Einstein’s two relativity models. I also ask why the results of obscure yet highly important nineteenth century experiments seem to have been repeatedly dismissed by the international physics community when it would have demonstrated that Einstein had erred in what his scientific model predicted. Furthermore I show that this dismissal occurs despite the fact that for over a hundred years some of the most learned minds in physics have thought otherwise. Finally I ask the question as to why it is we do not have Isaac Newton’s ether theory more generally taught in our educational institutions today when the evidence seems to show it should be.

I have offered my readers my views about what I feel are the unfortunate scientific and cultural consequences of this alleged concealment of important public information. I am not a physicist. The day that I felt that science lost its way was June 30th 1905.

My story

This blog is about how Albert Einstein may have partly erred when he presented his Special Relativity and General Relativity models in the early part of the twentieth century. This debate has been going on for many decades and has largely been hidden from the wider public. I am not a physicist but I would like to tell you this story all the same. From my extensive reading about this topic I believe that the most important aspects of what I am sharing with you today are mostly correct; however, it is likely that here and there I have not presented material in a manner that is historically appropriate. With the exception of general reference material that I have included at the end of this blog, I have included very few specific references.

There are two reasons why I have done this. Firstly, I think that if you are deeply interested in this topic, then I feel certain that you will set to one side the material that I am presenting you, and then conduct your own investigation in order to determine the truth of what I have written. Secondly, I will be posting a far more descriptive blog on the same subject within about a month from now. This new document will be posted in my website category entitled ‘My unity effort’. I will do my best to present this blog to you today in a manner that most lay folk will be able to understand. Keep in mind that some of the physics statements are tricky, and I do not know exactly how they work in a laboratory sense anyway. So please be patient with me on this score.

Like you, I was raised as a kid 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. 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 that Einstein scientifically cut corners with reality science in order to make things ‘fit’. This means that in my opinion, Einstein knowingly released his two relativity models in the realisation that they were both incomplete as well as he knowingly ignored existing scientific theories and experiments.

For example Einstein knew that both his models had inherent and unknowable metaphysical assumptions (like concepts of non-locality, such as consciousness) built into them. However, he did not openly talk about these things because they are not material phenomena. This is the reason why he developed his relativity models in the first place. I am not suggesting that Einstein was a liar. I am suggesting, however, that through his life Einstein periodically set out to avoid inconvenient truths relating to his research in order to make his models more believable than they would have otherwise been. Einstein’s underlying motive in doing this was to make his models material ones, so that they both clearly set aside the long term tradition in physics of space and time (like the Lorentz ether theory).

This was in order to bring material inertia (the fundamental frame of reference for every day reality science) for his two models, in lieu of the ether inertia model founded and promoted by Lorentz and his associated professional physicists like Poincare and Fitzgerald. Einstein knew that if he could do this with his models they would be ones where phenomena contained therein could be materially observed, described and tested in a lab. With ether theory, because the ether is invisible and motionless with no knowable features this is impossible. It is one of these ‘made to fit’ topics that I wish to share with you today and this relates to cosmic ether theory.

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:

Quote:

“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 know that there are serious shortcomings in Einstein’s relativity modelling. These shortcomings mostly originate from the fact that they see Einstein’s physics as being both incomplete and incorrect along the lines that I have stated above. I will now address the background to some of these issues.

Einstein had linked his models to light as the 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 an invisible and timeless ether.

I am suggesting that Einstein was at the time attempting to ‘squeeze’ his two relativity theories into respective material frames of reference that ignored the wider reality of the existence of a type of analogical overarching cosmic ether. This is an invisible ether that is massless and motionless and, as such, is unknowable but on the other hand describable. By this I mean that mathematics supports this hypothesis as well as the presence of a concurrent electromagnetic field therein. This hypothesis was demonstrated by experiment by Maxwell in the mid 19th century.

I feel that you should know that whilst Einstein had set out to describe his relativity theories as fundamental and universal principles for all physics, Lorentz on the other hand (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, which I will further discuss shortly.

I will now talk about how in the early twentieth century the international world of science came within a whisker of adopting a metaphysical model of reality physics. You may find these words are incredible. I will introduce you to this section of my blog by quoting an extract from a detailed wikipedia article.

Quote:

“In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether, aether, or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the postulated medium for the propagation of light.[1] 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 negative outcome of the Michelson–Morley 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 experiment failed to see aether, but was more broadly interpreted to suggest that it wasn’t needed. The Michelson-Morley experiment, along with the blackbody 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 argument at the time (which still pervades the world of physics to this day) surrounds the alleged null results of an experiment that took place in the United States of America in 1887. It is known as the Michelson – Morley experiment. The aim of this 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”. In this blog I will not attempt to explain the intricacies of the experiment to you because they are complicated and beyond my knowledge.

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

My primary mission here is to assert that I feel that there is likely to exist another more complete version of Relativity physics other than the ones Einstein left us with. This is another model that probably addresses many of the mysteries that plague the world of science to this day (such as gravity, entanglement, non locality and the mystery surrounding the double slit experiment).

I therefore suggest that in view of the then widely accepted ether theory in the  community (from such as Maxwell, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincare, and Heaviside) the single supposed null result from one experiment {Michelson and Morely, 1887} should have raised a much more serious debate than what it did at the time. And furthermore, 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, timeless ether as I have already indicated. This is an ether that had been widely known about and accepted for many years. Some theorists such as Lorentz and Poincare retained doubts about Einstein’s theories (movement of small and large objects in Special and General Relativity respectively). All the while Einstein was effectively promoting his theories. Maybe Lorentz, Poincare and other physicists at the time held off seriously challenging Einstein because the maths supporting Einstein’s modelling was almost the same as that Lorentz had formulated in earlier years which he publicly presented in Holland in 1904. [Einstein released his special relativity theory in June 1905].

As I have already suggested, 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 Einstein’s models are still vigorously defended. This includes the fact that the mathematics of Einstein’s models are derived from Lorentz’s original electron-ether model (theory of corresponding states) which, as I stated earlier, means  that both models are much the same. The following quote is an example of the science community discussion I am talking about.

Quote:

“During the 1920s, the experiments pioneered by Michelson were repeated by Dayton Miller, who publicly proclaimed positive results on several occasions, although not large enough to be consistent with any known aether theory. In any case, other researchers were unable to duplicate Miller’s claimed results, and in subsequent years the experimental accuracy of such measurements has been raised by many orders of magnitude, and no trace of any violations of Lorentz invariance has been seen. (A later re-analysis of Miller’s results concluded that he had underestimated the variations due to temperature.)

Since the Miller experiment and its unclear results there have been many more experiments to detect the aether. Many of the experimenters have claimed positive results. These results have not gained much attention from mainstream science, since they are in contradiction to a large quantity of high-precision measurements, all of them confirming special relativity.”

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Additionally, because of the electromagnetic field separately embraced within the ether, both models can be supported by physics rules observer requirements.

Quote:

“Perhaps the most important feature of the Lorentz hypothesis is that an observer moving with respect to the ether can apply the same electromagnetic equations as can the Einstein relativity model observer in his concept of a stationary ether system. This means that both observers, employing different physics, are making the same cosmic observations (Lorentz later called this phenomenon the theory of corresponding states)” [This quotation is from a document I commenced writing a few weeks ago. This is the blog that I hope to post within four weeks from now. I have entitled this parallel project “I care to talk to you about Hendrik Lorentz”].

In short, from a theoretical  perspective, there is little difference between both models, except for the fact that the inertia for both (primary point of reference to begin with such as ether) was different. In Lorentz’s ether theory the inertia is motionless and in Einstein’s relativity models it is not. Einstein’s theories related to moving objects within a space time inertia.

In other words, the holistic nature of ether/electron relativity theory as was created by Lorentz and his supporters was one that may have eventually led to the necessary body of information and physics that would have eventually led to a physics theory of everything. This includes a successful gravity theory as well. Einstein’s general relativity theory does not successfully incorporated a gravity theory because of Einstein’s desire to make phenomena “fit” within his physical science models. [Because Newton and others believed that gravity travels at instantaneous speed, does this mean that it emanates from outside the universe? It follows that if this is the case that it would be metaphysical phenomena.] You will find an essay supporting these words in item three of my reference section below.

I believe that it is the reluctance of the wider scientific community to embrace non-material (metaphysical) phenomena into their modelling that has seen it become as frustrated as it is today. This includes quantum entanglement and non-locality and its inability to discover super symmetry (new particles that would help them to understand the real world around us). I recently read that if this does not happen, science as we know it will soon be compelled to begin creating alternative models in order to understand reality. Is it conceivable that it may have to reconsider Lorentz’s ether theory? Who knows. You will find more information about this crisis in physics here:

http://www.jonathonfreeman.org/scientific-american-the-emerging-crisis-in-physics/

I will now turn my attention to discussing the now famous Michelson and Morely 1887 experiment with its associated null result that I mentioned earlier.  Probably this is a difficult area for you to understand and for me to write about. I have included two videos in order to assist you to understand the essential nature of the experiment. One of these is about the apparatus Michelson and Morely employed in order to conduct their experiment, and the second one relates to the frames of reference they were employing in order to confirm their experiment hypothesis. However, the point is that such an experiment took place and the alleged null result changed and conceivably re-directed the course of science forever.

As an introduction to my debate regarding this Michelson – Morley matter, I have cut and pasted a section of a Wikipedia article that may provide a useful background. I have emboldened what I consider to be key words in this article. However, the critical thing is the huge degree of confusion that existed within the scientific community regarding ether theory from around the mid nineteenth century onwards. It is this confusion and scientific disarray that is the focal point of my message to you today. Scientists were not able to make up their minds whether ether theory is pertinent to reality physics or not.

Quote:

“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 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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

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 is today. What is more important 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 mathematics as it relates to physics. I partly understand from my reading that this Newtonian interpretation of the experimental results contributed to the final negative result as well (I will seek to clarify this point in my new Henrik Lorentz paper).

It is against this background that the failure of this Michelson – Morley experiment reset the future of scientific history. It is for this reason that I feel that Lorentz and his colleagues were premature in supporting Einstein and his Relativity models as early as they did and hence gave Einstein greater credibility than he would have otherwise obtained. These words seem to be confirmed by Reg Cahill.

I will now do my best to describe the probable reasons why Lorentz and contemporary physicists thought the way they did about both the insignificant result of the Michelson- Morely experiment and the fluctuations of readings of the interferometer itself. 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 in reference to the inside of the rocket itself. However, you and the movement of the clock both have 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 seems to mean that the mechanism of the interferometer (akin to the mechanism of a clock), together with the molecular forces therein change and furthermore this same phenomena 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 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 seems that it was the contraction of the rigid arms of the interferometer in the Michelson – Morley experiment, together with associated time dilation affect, 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 also suggested earlier, it is possible that Newtonian mathematical interpretation played a negative role in this process as well, but this is yet to be determined.

I would now like to talk to you about time in relation to ether and Einstein’s two relativity models, more particularly so regarding clocks in Einstein’s space-time universe and Lorentz’s electron/ether theory. 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 phenomena of dilation. In my opinion this does not mean that Einstein’s relativity models are incorrect. I think that his preliminary intentions before he published his Special Relativity model in 1905 were contextually correct, in terms 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 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.

Quote:

“…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…”

I will begin to close this blog this way. I am about to be a little more critical of Einstein and I think you will soon realise why this is the case. Once again I remind my readers that Einstein needed some sort of ether theory for his two Relativity models in order for them to make mathematical and physical sense. Both his relativity models were supposed to be mutually complementary to each other. Special relativity was meant to relate to the movement of smaller objects and general relativity related to larger objects. Because Einstein was determined to solely describe physical models of reality he did create shortcuts in order to make his two models make sense. My example of one of them I have just talked about. Furthermore towards the end of his life Einstein began to feel that his speed of light frame of reference for both of his relativity models may have been incorrect as well. I have read in physics texts that Einstein did conceal this necessary feature of his relativity models in a covert manner (this is my layperson interpretation of the text) in both his models, which I do not fully understand. I will attempt to address this question in my more extensive follow on blog as well. Readers may find my blog entitled “The questionable nature of the standard model of physics” of interest as well. There is a significant amount of new information therein that is complimentary to this work today.

Only Einstein would have known the reason why he moved from traditional Newtonian ether theory to his two material models or relativity, against all the scientific wisdom and experience that existed around him. From my limited research 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 which are often in partnership with each other as I discussed earlier. These other theories seem to have been based upon the original electricity/magnetism model theorised by Maxwell which would later become electro-magnetic theory. With the input of other scientists such as Fitzgerald and Poincare, Lorentz finally presented his electron/ether thesis to the wider science community in 1904, that is, one year before Einstein released his special relativity model on June 30th 1905. That is why I entitled this blog ‘The day that science lost its way’.

Once again I remind my readers that Einstein knew full well that his two Relativity models rested upon the negative result of the Michelson – Morley interferometer experiment of 1887. Hence I ask this question. “Why did he do this when he also knew that the same experiment had been repeated several times both before (with mixed results) and after the now scientifically disputed 1887 experiment? The follow-on experiments after 1887 demonstrated that there was in fact consistent evidence that there was a continuation of the same fluctuating interferometer readings as had occurred in 1887. Surely Einstein should have realised these repeated experiments were telling him something and they were not just aberrations relating to the interferometer apparatus on the day? Additionally, and I feel this is the most important statement of this blog, the same experiment was once again replicated by the highly respected physicist Dayton Miller in the years between 1929 and 1932. Throughout this period Miller’s highly sophisticated interferometer data results were seemingly positively conclusive. I have used the word seemingly because from my reading of the literature, Millers’s peers (the panel of scientists who assessed his experimental results) rejected his experimental results.

The alleged reason for this rejection was because Miller did not create a written theory prior to his interferometer experiment, one that he should have made available to his assessment peers at the time when he submitted the results of his experiments. I have read that Miller corrected this error but the panel of professors still rejected his scientific findings. I will be discussing this period of Miller’s life in greater length in my more detailed Hendrik Lorentz presentation. I would like to try and understand the wider politics that were going on behind the scenes with Miller’s peers at the time of his experiment. I will never fully understand the physics relating thereto. Despite his negative experience with his peers, Miller was still able to successfully defend his 1933 interferometer results for the remainder of his life. Miller died in 1941. However, he was never able to achieve the high degree of recognition that he probably deserved. This too may be another reason why Miller’s experiment is not favourably recognised by the international physics community today.

Since 1933 many other interferometer and similar experiments relating to the same ether wind phenomenon (like Cahill and Morris) have been conducted with positive results. However, the international physics community continues to this day to hold firm on its stance that the original 1887 Michelson – Morley experiment must remain the defining negative experiment relating to ether wind controversy. In other words it seems to me that contemporary scientists are saying that Lorentz’s 1904 electron/ether physics theory (scientifically accepted at the time) will never again be considered for a stand-alone theory by mainstream physics. I will quote Albert Einstein as follows. I believe that Einstein’s words regarding the Michelson and Morely experiments should remain the defining statement of this longstanding and unhelpful issue in physics.

Quote:

“My opinion about Miller’s experiment (meaning the Michelson – Morley experiment) is as follows… Should the positive result be confirmed (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”

Source: Albert Einstein in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

I feel that you should know that over many decades hundreds of honourable and dedicated physicists have attempted to change the entrenched ideas of mainstream physicists (not necessarily via their own experiments) in respect to both Einstein’s relativity models. Apart from Dayton Miller and Herbert Ives you will find numerous other physicists contributing to this debate cited within the group of four sub-references at the close of this blog. These four references relate to my desire to share with you what to me is one of the most distressing stories one could ever expect in the life of a dedicated and honourable scientist. This is the story of Dayton Miller. Because these quotes are lengthy I have positioned them under my own references that follow a little further down the page.

I am of the opinion that this story needs to be told. I believe that it is a long overdue story that the media would never publish along the same inclusive lines that I have attempted to in this blog. I concede that my access to primary support material has been limited. I have not written this work for the benefit of scientists. This is because I feel that most scientists would probably already know at least a little bit about this unfortunate and closeted story in scientific history anyway. I would like to think that my words will principally interest laypersons, mums, dads and kids that would otherwise never had heard about such an unusual story. I am also aware that this story may seem to defy rational belief. This is one of the reasons why I have commenced writing a more comprehensive paper about the same subject. This new paper will include numerous primary and secondary scientific quotes. Please keep in mind that I am not a physicist.

As you consider this blog, I request that you not only keep Miller’s story in mind but also all the other scientists who over time have attempted to influence the international physics community to honourably and transparently reassess historical interferometer results. Furthermore perhaps a group of internationally respected physicists may consider conducting professional interferometer experiments of their own along the lines Dayton Miller did. I also wonder why it is that Isaac Newton’s ether theory should not return to becoming the scientific foundation stone of a physics story of everything, that is, a story about both material and metaphysical everyday reality. Am I correct in asking if this is not exactly what Isaac Newton was trying to tell us all in the seventeenth century?

You will understand that I feel passionate about this subject. I believe that there are very powerful ethical issues associated with this debate. As I pointed out at the beginning of this blog, it is inevitable that there are incorrect statements in my effort today, and for this I am sorry. There is also significant information online that provides a more accurate assessment of Einstein’s scientific life and times that I could never understand or seriously doubt. This is one such item. It has been written for the benefit of professional physicists. Thank you for considering the contents of my blog.

Here is reference material that may be of assistance to you with this topic:

1 The names and professional scientific backgrounds of the scientists that I have talked about 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) connections existing between infinite numbers of individual frames of reference of both a physical and metaphysical sub-quantum nature- which implies reality: https://vimeo.com/223564441
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.): https://vimeo.com/223565298
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: https://vimeo.com/223565003
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.

Quote:

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 physics has been awaiting to lead the way to unification of the fundamental forces.

If this article has peaked your interest in alternative cosmology, please set some time aside to watch Thunderbolts of the Gods. I guarantee that this video will change your perspective on our universe.

https://mic.com/articles/19755/the-speed-of-gravity-why-einstein-was-wrong-and-newton-was-right#.oj3l5n2ca

4. For the benefit of my readers who may have a greater knowledge and experience in physics than most of us, I 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 were inappropriately evolving between the periods of the 1920s and late 1940s. I intend to employ quotations from this book (and others similar to it) when I write my extended paper about this topic.

The following are quotes that relate to what I consider to be the less than acceptable experiences in science of the eminent physicists Dayton Miller in with regard to the Michelson – Morely experiment of 1887. I present you with four quotations.

Quote 1.
“… >> 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.>>>”

Quote 2.
“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]

Quote 3
“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 (for the benefit of my readers with a wider knowledge of physics than me)
“…>> 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.

Source:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/physics-without-einstein.33219/page-2