Date: 1998-02-14

Where: Philadelphia, PA, United States Venue: Friends Select School, Blauvelt Theater

Document: Abstracts

Conference Title: “The Search for Reality: Towards Objectivity and Rationality in Physics”. A Conference m Honor of the late Professor Parry Moon of M.I.T. on the 100th Anniversary of his birth, Saturday, February 14, 1998.

The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels , of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity. Such reforms have long been urgently needed; and yet there is no area of scholarship more stubbornly censorial, and more reluctant to reform itself.


Conference Authors & Papers

Can the Existence of Electricity be Required by the Thermodynamic Laws?
Mahmoud A. Melehy
Electrodynamics underlies special relativity, and electricity underlies electrodynamics. This paper shows, however, that the first and second laws of thermodynamics in fact, require the existence of electricity in nature. This interesting result can only be arrived at if the time rate of change of the particle thermal momentum is incorporated in thermodynamics, and the consequences are worked out. The outcome will be the novel thermodynamic formulation of generalized fields (TFGF). The TFGF allows calculating at equilibrium the change in entropy, (delta)s, per particle, across any interface, by a new method based on the first and second laws. But (delta)s can be calculated by classical methods. Equating the two values of (delta)s leads to a novel result: under conditions satisfied at almost all surfaces. membranes and other interfaces, there have to exist at such sites forces involving action-at-a-distance and other properties uniquely characteristic of electricity. This basic result explains many mysterious phenomena in nature and others previously explained by resorting to hypotheses ad hoc.
Commentary on Ritz’s Electrodynamics
Robert S. Fritzius
In 1908 Walter Ritz identified seven areas of difficulty with regard to the Maxwell-Lorentz electromagnetic field equations, which are based on the concept of a solid deformable ether.

  1. Electric and magnetic forces really express relations about space and time and should be replaced with non-instantaneous elementary actions (his emission theory).
  2. Advanced potentials don’t exist (and their erroneous use led to the Rayleigh-Jeans ultraviolet catastrophe).
  3. Localization of energy in the ether is vague.
  4. It is impossible to reduce gravity to the same notions.
  5. The unacceptable inequality of action and reaction is brought about by the concept of absolute motion with respect to the ether.
  6. Apparent relativistic mass increase is amenable to a different interpretation.
  7. The use of absolute coordinates, independent of all motions of matter, requires throwing away the time honored use of Galilean relativity and our notions of rigid ponderable bodies.
Deriving Maxwell’s Equations from a Postulated Two-Component Solid Aether
Delbert J. Larsen
Special relativity abandoned the aether as superfluous. but recent tests involving verification of Bell’s inequality call into question the validity of special relativity. Therefore. a re-examination of the classical concept of an aether is once again of considerable scientific interest. A postulated two-component solid aether can be used as a mechanical model to arrive at an axiomatic foundation for Maxwell’s Equations. Simple axioms governing the solid aether are proposed that can be manipulated via traditional vector calculus to mathematically derive Maxwell’s equations. The mechanical model for the aether leads to further physical interpretations for quantities such as electric charge. electric currents. the displacement current. electromagnetic waves and the scalar and vector potentials. Significantly. the model results in a unified physical interpretation for the displacement and electric currents.
Electromagnetic Fields from Three Viewpoints
Domina Eberle Spencer, Uma Y. Shama, Philip J. Mann
The field of a static charge distribution will be examined from three viewpoints: the Weber equation, the classical equation on which special relativity is based and the new Gaussian equation. It will be shown that with the Weber equation the force is a function of both velocity and acceleration and with the new Gaussian equation the force in a uniform electric field depends on the velocity of the test charge. But with the classical equation the force is independent of the velocity of the test charge. Experimental trajectories require mass to vary with velocity if the classical equation is postulated as in special relativity. But these trajectories may be consistent with a constant mass in both the Weber and the new Gaussian formulations. The field of a stationary current element is also examined from the three viewpoints. Extra terms occur with the Weber and the New Gaussian equations that will be significant in the analysis of high-speed charges moving in magnetic fields. Finally the force between stationary current elements is analyzed. According to classical theory the force is always perpendicular to the current element on which it acts. Tangential forces such as have been observed in many experiments can occur with both the Weber and the New Gaussian Equations. Aka “The Uniform Electric Field from Three Viewpoints”.
Fourteen Arguments Against Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity
Francisco J. Müller
Suspicions are raised by the fact that neither Einstein nor anyone else ever used again his 1905 “proof’ of the Lorentz transformations. Why? It and the rest of this paper have many defects: (1) sloppiness in use of symbols, (2) the integration of a numerical equation [!], (3) commission of a “dualistic sin” (Einstein’s own words); the theory really needs three postulates, (4) length (space) contraction having the same ad hoc character as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. (5) logical flaws invalidating the claim of relative simultaneity between relatively moving observers, in section 2. (6) in Section 3, Einstein’s transferal to the transverse light ray what he had deduced only for the longitudinal light ray. involving a mathematical contradiction. (7) variables x, t, etc. being referred at first to a “light path” (x=ct). but then later. without any justiflcatt’On. being generalized to apply to any mechanical object or event whatsoeVer, (8) employing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness (reification)-e.g. treating time and space like substantive entities. (9) subordinating physical causes to the postulational method used in mathematics. and (10) claiming that physical objects can have different real lengths or ages, depending on the speed of the observer, thus violating the objective identity ofsuch objects.Further crucial objections to special relativity and its interpretations include: (II) wrongly believing that E=mc2 was the essential basis for the atomic bomb, (12) wrongly believing that atomic energy comes from mass transmutation into energy, (13) Einstein’s fallacious derivation of E=mc2“. in which he begged the question, and (14) ignoring several physical phenomena-Doppler effects. Sagnac and GPS effects, stellar aberration, unipolar induction, etc.-that are not symmetric and so require a preferred frame of reference. which Einstein’s equivalence principle and relativistic electrodynamics do not allow.
Logical Principles and Kuhnian Analysis Applied to the Crisis in Modern Physics
John E. Chappell
Why do academic physicists fail to discover the flaws in special relativity (SR)? In distinct contrast to. e.g. the earth sciences, physics protects its most revered dogmas by excluding their critics from its ranks. Also, in choosing its paradigms. physics tends to be motivated by non-scientific criteria, as Tom Kuhn showed to be common in science. Constructivism, derived largely from his thought, would interpret the concepts of modem physics not as reflections of reality. so much as cultural constructs, stemming from a paradigm involving disdain for logic and common sense. and favoritism for the illogical and the bizarre. Yet it is not so easy to dispense with logic: if a theory is illogical – say if it violates the law of non-contradiction – it can never be confirmed by experiment. What are now considered confirmations of SR can. like most other empirical data. be interpreted in more than one way: as well as involving illogic, there are also logical ways, most of them consistent with a Newtonian approach.
Parry Moon 1898-1988: A Search for the Foundations of Relativity
Domina Eberle Spencer
On the hundredth anniversary of the birth of Professor Parry Moon. February 14, 1898. the paper summarizes his work on the study of the foundations of relativity. The beginning was his first project when he came to M.I.T. in 1924, as assistant to Vannevar Bush. an attempt to disprove relativity experimentally-and its nearly fatal end. Rather than questioning the details of Einstein’s theory of relativity, Professor Moon chose to question the postulates on which the theory of relativity rests: the postulate that the velocity of light is always constant and the general validity of the Maxwell equations. First came many years of study of the Ritz and Einstein postulates on the velocity of light, finally the proposal of the universal time postulate in 1956 and eventually the experimental proof of its validity. Half a century was devoted to the search for the keystone of electromagnetic theory, the equation for the force between moving charges, which culminated in the development of the new Gaussian equation for the force between moving charges and the realization that the Maxwell equations themselves must be slightly modified.
Special Relativity: The Experiments Equally Support Various Aether Theories
S. Richard Hazelett
Apparently, the successes of Einstein’ s general relativity theory have drawn attention away from his special relativity theory, which is one foundation of the general theory. The successes of special relativity are shown to be equally the successes of aether theory. as developed by George Stokes, G. F. Fitzgerald, H. A. Lorentz. A. A. Michelson. Herbert Ives and Petr Beckman, together with the implications of a new experimental discovery on light aberration by Ronald Hatch. It is submitted that the differing physical implications of the various theories deserve to be brought to the attention of the physics profession generally. Even the general theory should be weighed against the modified versions of Herbert Ives, Robert Dicke and Tom Van Flandern, while reserving for Einstein the intuition that started it all.
SRT: About That Light in the Beginning
Cynthia Kolb Whitney
When Einstein began his construction of Special Relativity Theory in 1905. he used just logic plus the then-known facts about light. At the time. light was deemed describable by Maxwell’s equations reduced to a wave-equation. wherein there was a product parameter (epsilon)0(mu)0 that was apparently the same for any observer, and should be interpretable as the inverse square of a wave speed c. Einstein sidestepped the question of what was waving (the aether?) and focused on the speed. thereby arriving at SRT.Just a year later. Einstein was beginning to delve into new and previously unanticipated characteristics of light: it’s apparently quantum character in black body radiation and in atomic emission and absorption. Apparently, light was not a wave but a particle. The photon was born. Later Einstein recognized photons to be indistinguishable, and participated in the development of Bose-Einstein statistics. He proposed the phenomenon of light amplification by stimulated emission, which led ultimately to the technology of lasers and all their present-day applications in coherent optics.Today we know that all light sources are at least a little bit coherent, and we know there are non-local effects in systems involving multiple and entangled photons. There is convincing evidence that light is not a point particle but rather some sort of extended body, within which communication is instantaneous.What if all this had been known before the development of SRT? Would things have looked different?
The Aether: Empirical Evidence, Functional Definition and Realistic Conceptualization
John E. Chappell
Sagnac’s experiment (1913) and many repeats thereof. including constant examples from GPS satellites, have provided strong evidence in support of the aether’s existence that Michelson and Morley did not provide in 1887. They tell us that the velocity of a light beam remains fixed relative to a preferred coordinate system (cs), while the cs of the source of the beam rotates relative to the preferred cs. Something has the function of fixing this velocity; although we may know nothing of its nature, we can still identify and name it on the basis of this function. We do the same in the case of gravity. Conceptualizing about the nature of the aether is most reliably done by sticking to known facts. Space is seething with photons that are more abundant in the lower energy ranges (Grote Reber). These photons may be the prime component of the aether. The passage of a comparatively high-energy photon. along a zigzag path, delivers energy to a receiver and also induces wave motion in the aether (Steven Rado argues that a gaseous aether can support waves that are not strictly transverse).
The Reality of Universal Time
Domina Eberle Spencer, Uma Y. Shama
The paper proves the mathematical necessity for a new postulate on the velocity of light, if universal time is a reality. This is the universal time postulate on the velocity of light proposed by Moon and Spencer in 1956. Moon, Spencer and Moon developed the general form of this postulate in 1989. The paper then summarizes the recent proofs of the validity of the universal time postulate: stellar aberration based on the astronomical observations of Bradley in 1728 and the current establishment of universal time by the GPS satellite system. Both prove that Einstein’s postulate on the velocity of light must be abandoned.
The Restoration of Space and Time from a Galilean Approach to Relativity’s Second Postulate
Curtis E. Renshaw
Dimensional analysis of Maxwell’s equations in a planar electromagnetic wave fonn interpreted in a certain way imply wave propagation at a speed of c. defined as ((epsilon)0(mu)0)1/2. Such analysis does not specify anything at all about the specific values of (epsilon)0 or (mu). Thus Maxwell’s equations in and of themselves say nothing about the specific velocity of propagation of an electromagnetic wave through space or with respect to a given source. The generally accepted frame-invariance of c. and hence (epsilon)0 and (mu)0, independent of the motion of the source (and thus independent of the relative motion between source and observer) constitutes an assumption. The Lorentz transformations are required in order to retain the form of Maxwell’s equations in any inertial frame of reference (IFR) under this assumption, an assumption that Einstein raised to the status of a postulate. This paper demonstrates that such an assumption is too restrictive to form the basis for a postulate. Relaxing the restriction on c imposed by Einstein’s second postulate results in an alternative aether-free Galilean invariant solution, eliminating length contraction and time dilation. This solution restores common sense concepts of space, time and simultaneity and fully supports all experimental and observational results yet produced.
The Speed of Gravity: An Experimental Contradiction of Einstein’s Special Relativity
Tom Van Flandern
Of the ten independent classes of experiments testing various aspects of special relativity (SR), half appeared at first to contradict the frame reciprocity prediction of SR in favor of the earlier non-reciprocal relativity theory proposed by Lorentz (LR). However, these were all eventually reconciled by giving new interpretations to SR. and are now cited as experimental corroboration of Sa. One of these apparently contradictory. now reconciled experiments is the Global Positioning System (GPS). GPS shows that clocks in many different reference frames can be simultaneously synchronized and syntonized. and remain that way even as satellite clocks orbit and ground clocks rotate around the Earth?s spin axis. This experimental fact is alien to the spirit of SR. but can be reconciled with it by confining one’s attention to the Earth-centered inertial frame. thereby ignoring reciprocity issues. Apparently. only the finding of a natural phenomenon that propagates much faster than light in forward time would unambiguously distinguish between SR and LR in favor of the latter. We present the results of several lines of experimental evidence. both direct and indirect, showing that the speed of gravity is a natural phenomenon of that type. The strongest experiment uses binary pulsar orbits to place a lower limit to the speed of gravity of 20.000,000,000 times the speed of light. Far from upsetting physics, this resolves several current dilemmas, such as explaining how the external gravity fields of binary black holes get updated. and why some recent quantum physics experiments appear to violate the locality condition.
Two Experiments That Invalidate Relativistic Electrodynamics
Francisco J. Müller
In 1905 Einstein said that the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction “depends only upon the relative motion between a magnet and a conductor.” But this is not true in general, as demonstrated by the history of unipolar induction experiments, especially the one by Kennard in 1917. The author has generalized the Kennard experiment in two experiments of his own: (a) a rotational experiment with permanent magnets and (b) a linear translational one with the same magnets. Neither the special nor the general theories of relativity can explain the results of these experiments. Einstein himself said that only a single experiment disagreeing with his theory would totally invalidate it; therefore it has been invalidated. in the laboratory.