Dates: 19990411 – 19990415
Where: Santa Fe, NM, United States Venue: Santa Fe Community College
Document: Abstracts
Description
The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broadranging, fully openminded 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
“The Big Bang is Bunk” Revisited 
Grote Reber 
(blank) 
A Derivation of Maxwell’s Equations from a Simple Solid TwoComponent Aether 
Delbert J. Larsen 
Transverse vibrations of solids. such as waves on a string. exhibit many of the properties of light. Physicists in the 1890′ s therefore anticipated that light was also the result of a solid oscillation, and the solid underlying light waves was identified as a new substance. the aether. Einstein’s special theory of relativity (SRT) abandoned the aether as superfluous, but persistent troubling problems in physics (such as EPR phenomena) require that we explore alternatives to SRT. and a return to aether science is one exciting alternative. A mathematically rigorous derivation of Maxwell’s Equations will be presented based on a simple solid aether model. It will be shown that such a model naturally unifies the two types of currents (moving charge and displacement) which exist in the Maxwell theory. Charge conservation and the absence of magnetic monopoles are readily explained. Physical models result for fields and charges. An experiment is proposed which may lead to a test of the proposed theory. 
A Dialogue on Position 
Richard Oldani 
A student who wants to “understand” quantum mechanics asks a physics professor how to determine the fourcoordinate position of a particle. It soon becomes evident that Heisenberg’s microscope experiment is totally inadequate as a model since the observer does not actually participate in the measurement process, and a procedure for measuring the time coordinate microscopically has never been defined. In fact, in a strict sense, quantum mechanics does not have a logically coherent method for determining position in even a single dimension. Their attempts to resolve these differences are an exercise in futility until the student finally realizes that before they can agree on anything they have to be able to communicate. 
A Modification of the Schwartschild Solution for Einstein’s Field Equations that Radically Changes Big Bang Theory 
Roland L. Hron 
If the Schwarzchild solution for Einstein’s field equations were modified very slightly black hold theory and the big bang theory would have to change completely while all of the observed anomalies predicted by his solution at long distances from a central mass object would still be correctly predicted. If one takes the position that the proximity of a mass object is not “empty space” then the requirement that the metric be invariant under the time reversal, t > t, does not hold there. The result is a new metric which approaches the Schwarzchild metric as the distance from a central mass object increases. One consequence of this modification is that if a mass object smaller than its event horizon existed. its event horizon would be at MC/c^{2} rather than 2MC/c^{2} and nothing could get inside it because G becomes zero at the horizon and is negative inside it. There are no singularities. Depending on how one looks at it, time either stops or the velocity of light goes to zero at the event horizon. 
An Absolute Theory for the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies 
Delbert J. Larsen 
An axiomatic set employing clock retardation alone is shown to be sufficient to derive the Lorentz kinematic transformations; the Fitzgerald length contraction is not required. Since the kinematic transformations lead solely and directly to the electrodynamic transformation, this paper presents the third axiomatic set (the others are due to Lorentz and Einstein) consistent with presently accepted electrodynamic theory. The theory proposed herein assumes classical concepts for space and time; Galilean relativity and an aether are assumed. The present experimental evidence relative to spacetime theory is reviewed, and its relevance to the three competing axiomatic sets is discussed. It is shown that the new theory requires the MichelsonMorley experiment to be explained by a node enforcement hypothesis. Shortcomings in the Einstein theory include measurements of EPR phenomena. while shortcomings of the Lorentz theory may result from the tests due to Sherwin. Two new tests are proposed that could experimentally prove which axiomatic set best represents reality. 
Answer to a Question About the HafeleKeating Experiment 
Francisco J. Müller 
(blank) 
Attaching the Gamma Factor to the Velocity of Light 
John E. Chappell 
(blank) 
Both Crehore’s AllNuclear Atom and an Ether are Needed to Understand Gravity and the Unity of the Universe 
Robert L. Stilmar 
(blank) 
Boundaries of Applicability of Special Relativity 
Neil E. Munch 
Einstein’s special relativity (SRT) was based on assumptions of: a) kinematics, b) rectilinear motion at constant velocity v, c) constancy of light speed (his 2″<1 principle), d) compliance with Lorentz’s transformation, and 3) satisfaction of experimental data of MichelsonMorley and of Doppler and electrodynamic effects. Kinematics presume no influence of forces such as gravity. Rectilinear motion and constant v preclude rotation or acceleration of any kind. Such an environment (no forces or accelerations from those forces) is found nowhere in our universe; so SRT is no applicable anywhere in our universe. Experimental results (such as Sagnac effects, mass increases and muon life times) are beyond SRT boundaries and hence inapplicable to SRT. Most remaining assumptions above are selfcontradictory when viewed with precise notation and also inapplicable. 
Can Particles Exist as Standing Waves in a Superdense Aether? 
Joseph L. McKibben 
The proposed aether is based on the existence in all space of an exceeding dense gas that strictly obeys Newton’s laws. Its equations are as used in the theory of sound. The standingwave amplitude drops off approximately as 1/r^{l.5} the solution will be discussed; it is my own. The mass of the particle is the displaced mass of the aethers; so dualism is naturally present. Besides reducing the local aether density, the standing waves emit secondharmonic waves whose amplitude is proportional to the displaced mass and so create gravitationallike forces between particles having the same mass. Special relativity is obeyed, except the velocity relative to the aether is observable. SpinO particles appear in clusters of three that are phased 120 degrees apart and so can be said to have colors red, green, and blue. The solution of spin1/2 particles is discussed. The need to maintain spacetime phase lock at the centers of particles leads to quantum mechanics. Since the energy density drops off exponentially, the concept of renormalization needs to be utilized (My intuitive understanding of this concept is poor). More complete theoretical verification of the proposed concepts could lead to a better understanding of free energy in the vacuum. 
Definitive Insights into the Origins of Solar Systems and the Orbital Spacing and Evolution of Planets 
Alexander A. Scarborough 
The mystery of why planets are spaced in a mathematical pattern around the Sun has baffled scientists since astronomer Johann Kepler (discoverer of the first three laws of planetary motion) made the initial futile attempt in J595 to find the solution. This elusive solution to a definitive Fourth Law of Planetary Motion explaining the spacing of planets is proposed. The four laws are powerful evidence that planets began as Sunlike masses of nuclear energies that evolve via the processes of internal nucleosynthesis through five common and observable stages of evolution. The Fourth Law is the final link in a FLINE paradigm of planetary origins comprised of three chronological. inseparable and ongoing realities: The Four Laws of Planetary Motion (FL). Internal Nucleosynthesis (IN) and Evolution (E). The pace of evolution through each of the five stages and the planetary features in each stage are revealed as functions of planetary mass and distance from the Sun. All planetary systems embrace these FLINE principles, of which more remain to be discovered. Every planetary anomaly should be examined closely in this new perspective. 
Dynamic Gamma Factor: Yes; Lorentz Transformation: No 
Georg Galeczki 
Mass increase with velocity and slowing down of some physical processes are nonreciprocal, absolute effects, dependent on Newtonian absolute velocity. This was confirmed in the Bertozzi experiment^{1} in which both kinetic energy and velocity were directly and independently measured. The definition of the uniform velocity excludes all nonGalilean transformations. so that the kinematic gammafactor equals one. Mass increase with velocity is a consequence of kinetic energy possessing inertia. The inertia of potential and / or configuration energy has to be postulated. Both the theoretical and the empirical absence of “Thomas precession” requires a new analysis of the electron and muon gfactor measurement at CERN, in which the deviation (g2) was derived from the beat frequency between the cyclotron frequency and that of the “Thomas precession”.^{2}

Ether Optics 
Glen W. Deen 
The apparent conflict between Müller’s 1933 absolute solar motion of 208 km S?I toward the I.MC and the CMB anisotropy dipole velocity of 370 km S?1 towards Leo, some 85n away in direction, is resolved. A cosmic ether wind velocity field as a function of direction is computed from first principles which reproduces both velocities. The aberration of light is very small because the speed of light is very fast. Ether wind speeds are much slower, so the aberration of ether rays is much greater. Müller found the annual aberration of the 208 km S?1 interstellar wind to be about 86, compared to 20g for light. Interplanetary and planetary ether winds are even slower, being on the order of the escape velocity from the Sun or the planet. respectively. Much work remains to be done. The Newtonian escape velocity at the surface of the Sun is 618 km S?I, and that is much greater than the maximum available ether wind speed of 370 km 51, yet ether escapes the Sun. This implies that there may be discrete spherical shells surrounding each star. The density of the ether and the speed of light within a given shell are constant, but in each successive shell moving outward from the star, the density of the ether may be greater and the speed of light and the ether wind may be lower than within the interior shell. If true, then light rays would experience refraction at each interface, and the image of the Sun and every star and every cluster of stars may be reduced as it would be from viewing it through a negative lens. Thus, greater interstellar distances may be an optical illusion. 
Genuine Subharmonic Equations to Replace Those of Schr?dinger and Dirac 
Martin Müller 
The most challenging unsolved problem of physics of this century is the question of where the electrons are located in the atoms and how they “behave”. The solution is presented via a new atom model, created in the nineties of our century. This model does, for being calculable, not need the nonsense of “quantum mechanics” of the twenties. For it, classical (Newtonian) mechanics is absolutely adequate. We confine the investigation to monovalent elements. Even here we have three different conditions: metallic atoms or molecules, nonmetallic (or insulator) ones, and the H/H<sub>2</sub> case. This requires three different equations, which are obtained as the second derivatives of locus functions of time. Analytical integration yields the first derivative, the Schrodinger equation alike. The new (subharmonic) differential equations differ from Schrodinger’s insofar as the right hand side is under a square root sign. The next integration in each case is numerical. Results are presented. 
Gravitational Time Versus Inertial Time 
James Carter 
(blank) 
High Velocity Applications of Electrodynamics 
Domina Eberle Spencer, Philip J. Mann, Uma Y. Shama 
The problem of the trajectory of a charged particle in both electric and magnetic fields is formulated in three ways: utilizing the Weber equation for the force between moving charges. the classical equation and the new Gaussian equation: In the analysis. in terms of the classic equation, it is necessary to assume that mass varies with velocity. Since both the Weber equation and the new Gaussian equation are expressed in terms of relative velocity, it is possible to retain the simpler concept of constant mass. Applications will be made to the key high velocity configurations. It is not possible to discriminate between the three theories studies on the basis of this set of applications. since the classical theory can be made to conform with real measurements by introducing variation of mass with velocity. 
Inertial Systems, Reference Frames and the Lorentz Transformations in a Gravitational Field 
Roland L. Hron 
If two inertial systems or reference frames in the vicinity of the same mass gravitational reference are moving in a straight line relative to each other at least one of them must be accelerating relative to that gravitational reference. Since the universe is defined by its mass objects it is the contention of this presentation that Lorentz transformations cannot be applied to “nonaccelerating reference frames” moving at constant velocity relative to each other anywhere in the universe. 1t further shows that the Lorentz transformations are not covariant but are on way relationships relative to fixed gravitational reference points in space. The empirical evidence that appears to support the covariance of the Lorentz transformations also support the one way hypothesis since the experiments and observations were mostly made in the Earth’ s gravitational field. 
Interfacial Thermodynamics: A General Review 
Mahmoud A. Melehy 
Thermal motion involves significant particle momenta p. Incorporating p into thermodynamics leads to a generalization of the MaxwellEinstein diffusion force. which is highly significant at interfaces. Determining how this force interacts with electric fields^{1} has led to new, general consequences: (1) Unification of the theory of conduction in diodes and solar cells. Theory has accurately agreed with extensive experimental data reported by some 27 authors, in the period 1951978. (2) Revealing that the first and second laws^{2} require a new, important, universal property: the electrification of interfaces. This paper reviews the basic foundation of this novel thermodynamic formulation, and proceeds to explain numerous consequent phenomena and pictures of experimental observations that confirm this thermodynamicallyrequired property of electrification of surfaces, membranes. and other interfaces.

Lorentzian Dynamics 
Ronald R. Hatch 
A number of modem physicists have espoused some form of absolute ether theory. But any such theory must explain a number of experiments via dynamic forces in place of the SRT kinematic explanation. This paper attempts to resolve a number of these experimental issues and to provide a coherent explanation of the apparent relativity which results. The specific stimulus for this paper was provided by Sherwin’s experiment which attempted to detect directly the LorentzFitzgerald length contraction. However, the Sherwin experiment is generalized herein to thought experiments involving gravitational and electromagnetic interactions. The appropriate force equations are explored for a mass particle in a gravitational orbit and for a charged particle in an electrostatic orbit. For apparent relativity to hold while angular momentum and energy are conserved puts very specific and precise limits on the form of the force equations. Ironically, the electromagnetic Lorentz force does not meet the requirements. Neither does the Ampere force law. Only the GaussRiemannWhittaker force law has the appropriate functional dependence. 
Mass Variation With Speed 
Clarence L. Dulaney 
In 1805, Einstein noted that a spherical wave at a speed of light has the equation x^{2} + y^{2} + z^{2} = c^{2}t^{2}. But the proper derivation yields 3c^{2}t^{2} on the righthand side of the equation. This error has been perpetuated until the present day. A well known College physics textbook, for example, derives the Lorentz Transformations of length and time starting from the above equation. All the various derivations of the mass variation with speed in STR are based on these Lorentz Transformations. A few comments are made on the thermodynamics of mass increase with speed. 
Measuring Superluminal Velocity 
Hal Fox 
Although 66 extragalactic sources are listed where superluminal velocities appear to range from greater than c to 26 times c. such distant observations lack laboratory experimental evidence. A possible low cost experiment is proposed to measure superluminal velocities resulting from explosions. It is hypothesized that explosions can produce torsion field changes that can be detected with the HodowanekRamsay gravity fluctuation instrument. The measurement would be the time interval between the measure of the torsion field pulse and a high frequency radio pulse. The paper cites Russian papers on superluminal velocities of torsion field fluctuations and discusses the possible impact on Einstein’s second postulate. 
Photons and the Change in Mass of Moving Bodies 
James Carter 
The fundamental, yet often unstated. premise upon which the Special Theory of Relativity rests is the idea that the photon has no mass. This is a purely metaphysical assumption that is not confirmed by any experiment. All measurements of mass, energy and photons show the photon to have an energy of E=MC^{2} and a mass of M=Sqrt(E/C^{2}). The apparent conflict between these two equations is resolved by simply ignoring the second and declaring that photons, unlike any other bodies, are “pure” energy and have no mass. This faulty logic then leads to the conclusions that photons are created from the destruction of mass and that the energy used to accelerate a body increases its mass. However, a more rigorous interpretation of photon dynamics shows that mass is a universal constant and is never converted into photons and is never increased by the acceleration of bodies. 
Pioneer 10/11, Anomalous Gravitation and Special Relativity 
Curtis E. Renshaw 
Radiometric data from the Pioneer 10 and II spacecraft indicate an apparent, constant skewing between the predicted and observed Doppler shifts. This offset has been attributed to a possible acceleration of 8.0 x 10^{8} cm/s^{2}directed toward the sun for both craft. Any potential gravitometric models and systemic problems seem to fail in explaining this discrepancy. The value of the observed anomalous shift is shown to equal the difference between the calculated values for Newtonian and special relativistic Doppler expressions. The primary difference between these two equations is the timedilation term of special relativity. For there to be a systemic problem in the equipment that exactly matches the presumed special relativistic Doppler timedilation offsets for the specific velocities of the Earth and the Pioneer spacecraft would be a coincidence beyond comprehension. The anomalous signals seem to indicate a preference for the Newtonian values and a deficiency of the relativistic Doppler corrections rather than any new gravitational physics. If proved correct, these results would place severe constraints on the applicable domain of special relativity. 
Push Gravity 
Clarence L. Dulaney 
If neutrinos have any mass, they could cause gravity, for example in the earthmoon system, by being preferentially absorbed by the earth, thus leading to a Müller number of neutrinos hilling the moon on the “space ward” side. It is shown that a minuscule effect would be produced in the temperature and in the increase of the mass of the moon. The increase of the mass would change the period of the moon’s orbit, but would be too small to overcome tidal effects. Calculations are made on these effects, for various potential neutrino speeds and percentages absorbed. 
Simultaneity and Time Dilation 
Clarence L. Dulaney 
(blank) 
Simultaneity Cannot Possibly be Relative to Motion 
John E. Chappell 
A slightly modified version of the 1962 critique by philosopher Melbourne Evans (Emeritus, Univ. of New Mexico) shows that (I) in the famous moving train thought experiment he used to introduce his spatial theory of relativity, Einstein reached his result of relative simultaneity only by contradicting himself within the same chain of reasoning; and furthermore that (2) avoiding such a contradiction will lead inevitably to absolute simultaneity, whatever velocity is attributed to light. As shown in a 1968 book by Rosser, another kind of attempt to validate relative simultaneity, a mathematical “proof’ based on the Lorentz transformations, rests entirely on an invalid shift in meaning of certain mathematical symbols – which at first designate lengths. and then surreptitiously are reassigned to designate points. 
Simultaneity of Clocks Need Not be a Concern in Special Relativity 
Neil E. Munch 
(blank) 
The Electrodynamic Interpretation of Mass Variation 
Domina Eberle Spencer, Philip J. Mann, Uma Y. Shama 
The paper considers the special case of a charged particle moving in a uniform electric field. Three formulations of the problem are compared, utilizing the Weber equation. and the new Gaussian equation. The critical difference is whether the force is defined in terms of absolute velocity (classical) or relative velocity (Weber and new Gaussian). The actual trajectory of the charged particle can be explained in two ways: if the force is a function of absolute velocity it is necessary to introduce a variable mass. However. if the force is a function of relative velocity the correct trajectory is predicted with a constant mass. Consequently. both the Weber Equation and the new Gaussian equation explain the experimental trajectories of charged particles in a uniform electric field with a mass which does not vary. 
The Evaluation of the Unipolar Induction Integrals 
Domina Eberle Spencer 
(blank) 
The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness as Revealed in Special Relativity 
John E. Chappell 
Exposing logical flaws in special relativity (SR) and its alleged supporting evidence usually involves finding circular reasoning or applying the law of noncontradiction. But also very useful is invoking the fallacy of misplaced concreteness (or “reification”), which occurs when properties of substantive things are attributed to nonsubstantive things or concepts. Example: a controlling influence over light velocity can logically be attributed only to something that can exert force, and this a coordinate system (CS), which is only an abstract set of points and lines, can not do; yet. in effect. the second postulate of SR claims that light velocity is fixed by the CS of the observer. Related arguments can firmly prove that space cannot curve and times cannot dilate. Such proofs cannot be refuted by any claim of experimental evidence to the contrary. 
The Interpretation of the Velocity of Light 
Domina Eberle Spencer, Uma Y. Shama 
Previous papers have shown that the only postulate on the velocity of light that is consistent with all of the experiments hitherto analyzed is the universal time postulate on the velocity of light which was proposed by Moon and Spencer in 1956. This paper will concentrate on the interpretation of the universal time postulate. Light travels outward from its source in a spherical wave whose radius always increases at velocity c. as suggested by Huygens. The center of this sphere is always at the source. If the source travels at a constant velocity. this reduces to the corpuscular hypothesis of Newton. But if the source is accelerated. the result is slightly different than was suggested by either Huygens or Newton. It is this small difference which permits the synchronization of all moving clocks and makes possible the existence of clocks which tell universal time. Such clocks are now commercially available, controlled by the satellite system. 
The Orbiting Clock Paradox: Should the Lorentzian View Be Preferred? 
Dennis J. McCarthy 
Experiments confirm that a circling observer will see a stationary inertial clock in the center of the circle run fast. For large circles, one can always hypothesize the existence of a comoving inertial “lab partner” who is colocated and essentially stationary with respect to the circling observer for some finite period of time. The circling observer must interpret that his observation of the rate of the center clock, as determined by the relativistic Doppler equation, show the center clock is running fast with respect to his stationary clocks. According to the special theory of relativity, the comoving inertial “lab partner” of this circling observer must interpret that this same observation shows the center clock is running slow with respect to those same stationary clocks. The Lorentzian Relativity analysis of this orbiting clock situation should be preferred to the Einsteinian explanation because it does not demand that colocated “lab partners” interpret the exact same observation in two different ways. 
The Physical and Mathematical Meanings of Einstein’s Four 1905 Postulates 
Gerald I. Lebau 
(blank) 
The Recycling Universe 
William C. Mitchell 
Cosmological theorists have overlooked an important aspect of the universe, that’ of the dispersal of matter and energy from galaxies into interstellar space. This paper reports on an attempt to give that phenomenon proper consideration. That effort has resulted in a new cycling universe cosmology. That universe, of great of age, provides an explanation for such things as the excess mass in the vicinity of galaxies, the nature of dark matter and, if the universe truly is expanding, its cause is the galactic wind. As background, as a point of departure, and to provide a comparison to these new ideas, a discussion of the problems of Big Bang Theory is also presented. 
The Universe Began as a Great Fire, Not a “Big Bang” 
James Carter 
The assumption is made that the universe began not as an exploding singularity but as the result of the joining together of two separate entities. After this initial union, a long series of division occurred from which the matter present in the universe today emerged. As this very orderly process of creation is examined in detail, many of the universe’s mysteries can be easily explained. Among these are:

The Universe is Rotating, Not Flying Apart 
Robert L. Stilmar 
Dr. Albert C. Crehore, with his allnuclear atom, established that material particles can approach each other to a minimum distance of approximately 10.13 centimeters. This rules out any ‘Big Ban’ in the creation of the Uni verse. He also established that all radiation is the result of an electron being ejected from an atom to a certain distance, and then returning. But in this process, the only reasonable mechanism to create a velocity ‘c’ of the resulting photons is an annihilation of material particles with this internal velocity, created in an ether. The ejected and returning electron does this. The ether is entrained by any large mass object, so a star moving radically, or transversely, with the same velocity, would create identical photons which are redshifted as they enter the normal, static ether. This redshift has been erroneously taken as exclusive evidence of an expanding, rather than a rotating Universe. The Hubble Constant is now the fixed angular velocity of the Universe, connecting the transverse velocity of its parts with their distance from its center. 
The Untenable Nature of Relativistic Mass Increase 
Curtis E. Renshaw 
(blank) 
What Exactly Are the Problems (If Any) with Special Relativity Theory and Tests? 
Neil E. Munch 
(blank) 