Dates: 20000605 – 20000609
Where: Storrs, CT, United States Venue: University of Connecticut, Mathematics Department
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.
Document: Caroline Thompson, Report on NPA Conference at Storrs, June 2000.
Conference Authors & Papers
21st Century Physics and ZeroPoint Energy 
Hal Fox 
The concept of zeropoint energy is derivable from the Schrodinger Equations. There are devices that use this energy source to produce more output energy than input energy. Some of these devices are cited. One of the major 21st Century developments will be the early commercialization of a few newenergy devices and systems. One of the most promising is the use of high density charge clusters to provide both thermal and electrical energy. Several products are cited that will be readied for market in 2000 and 2001. 
A Classical Basis for Electromagnetics 
Sidney Bertram 
The interaction between electric charges is here assumed to take place in their fields, where there is an isotropic propagation at the velocity of light with respect to the individual charge centers. This leads to an increase in the mutual energy between two charges if one is in motion with respect to the other, the amount depending on whether the motion is transverse to or along the line of their separation; this provides the basis for a classical derivation of the differential relationships of electromagnetics. It is shown that induced electric forces arise from the energy changes when one charge accelerates, and that magnetic forces arise from the crossproduct term in the mutual energy when both charges are moving; the squared velocity terms in the mutual energy are canceled by the energy associated with the moving charges interacting with the fixed ions in the conductors that are left be?hind by the moving charges. The derivations are directed to the behavior of charges in conductors, where conditions are essentially static and retarded fields need not be considered. 
A Classical Look at Stellar Evolution: White Dwarfs, ‘Neutron’ Stars, and Black Holes 
Clarence L. Dulaney 
(blank) 
A Complete Relativistic Gravity Model with No SpeedofLight Limit 
Tom Van Flandern 
If we understood the origin and nature of gravitational force, apparent paradoxes in relativity and cosmology would disappear. Recent experimental results show that gravity propagates much faster than light (Phys. Lett. A 250, #13, 111, 1999). This provides the first experimental distinction between special relativity (SR) and Lorentzian relativity (LR) in favor of the latter. The Global Positioning System (GPS) already makes full use of LR’s universal simultaneity. This result also favors LeSagetype models for the nature of gravity over curved spacetime models such as general relativity (GR). A LeSage model explains gravity as a vast sea of tiny, fastmoving entities (called classical “gravitons”) that easily penetrate ordinary matter, even of planetary or stellar dimensions. Bodies feel an apparent force of attraction because they shadow one another from some graviton impacts. All classical and relativistic effects are readily understood in such a model, and have no paradoxical aspects. Differences between the Einstein and LeSage interpretations of gravity arise in four areas, each providing new insights into the operations of nature. Existing experimental data clearly favor the LeSage interpretation. A falsification test involving binary pulsars will soon be available. 
A Geometrical Approach to ActionataDistance Electrodynamics 
Calin Galeriu 
This paper begins with a brief introduction to the trigonometry of the complex plane. We then present an intuitive, geometrical derivation of the relativistic addition of velocities, and of the electromagnetic interaction between two uniformly moving charged particles, based on 2 spatial + 1 temporal dimensional Minkowski diagrams [http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0003008]. New physical insight is then obtained by a critical analysis of the concept of ‘material point particle’. We argue that this concept is incompatible with the force laws of actionatadistance electrodynamics. By complementing our mod?l with other results, we are led to a straightforward derivation of the principles underlying the electromagnetic interaction between two uniformly moving charged particles. An extension of our theory to the case of particles in arbitrary motion shows that we have to modify the Maxwell equations of the <i>microscopic</i> electromagnetic field, in order to accommodate a fieldstrength tensor which is no longer antisymmetric, Remarkably, the averaged <i>macroscopic</i> field still is described by an antisymmetric tensor. Future work will try to determine how our results are related to the tangential forces experimentally and theoretically studied by other authors [Physics Essays 12 (1) p.153]. 
A Modified Lorentzian Ether Theory 
Ronald R. Hatch 
The author has developed a “Modified Lorentzian Ether Theory” (MLET). which he has also referred to as an “Ether Gauge Theory” (BGT). A brief logical development of MLET is presented, with each step in the development constrained by experiment. MLET provides a logical and easily understood alternative to both the “Special Relativity Theory” (SRT) and the “General Relativity Theory” (GRT). The new theory is particularly significant for its description of a simple mechanism for both the gravitational force and for inertia. Once the theory is developed, experiments either in work or newly suggested are described which should either support or refute the new theory. 
A New Entropy Law Unifying Physics 
Ingvar Astrand 
(blank) 
A New Look at Thermodynamics, Part 1: Theory 
Mahmoud A. Melehy 
Thermodynamic equilibrium is most generally characterized by the principle of microscopic reversibility,l which matured some fifty years after thermodynamics was formulated. This paper shows that in light of that important principle the classical thermodynamic formulation would be valid only if the system particles have no thermal motion.2 Such a condition can only be realized at absolute zero. But above that temperature, particles acquire thermal motion and momenta. The rate of change of the particle thermal momentum, per unit area, is a mechanical pressure, which can profoundly vary across an interface. Particles transported through such sites can then be subjected to highly significant mechanical forces. Accounting for these forces leads to fundamental consequences, including: (1) a distinction between motive and dissipative forces/processes; and (2) the need to invoke the conservation of energy principle to determine how motive and dissipative forces/processes interact. Consequently, the state of equilibrium is rendered more detailed than has heretofore been possible to express. Specifically, at equilibrium, each dissipative force vanishes, and each nonvanishing motive force becomes conservative, so that the motive work it does per particle around every closed loop in the system vanishes and cannot drive any particle flux.

A New Look at Thermodynamics, Part 2: Experimental Corroboration and Applications 
Mahmoud A. Melehy 
Accounting for the rate of change of the particle thermal momentum in thermodynamics has unified the theory of semiconductor diodes and solar cells. 1 Theory has accurately been corroborated by extensive experimental data reported by some 27 authors in a period exceeding a quarter century. Recently, it has been shown2 that, in the framework of the new thermodynamic theory, the first and second laws require the electrification of nearly all surfaces, membranes, and other interfaces. This result readily explains numerous diversified phenomena in the physical, life, and engineering sciences, such as: the generation of static electricity by rubbing two different insulators against one another, surface tension, capillarity, adhesion, electrical breakdown in insulators, atmospheric electricity, suspension of fog and of the clouds, changeofphase electricity (including electricity associated with the growth of cancer cells), and the electromagnetic forces that shape tornadoes, and lead to their destructive properties.

An ElectroMechanical Theory of Gravitational Attraction 
Robert G. Dozier 
(blank) 
An Introduction to Myron Evans’ B(3) Theory 
Hal Fox 
(blank) 
Are Flaws Due to Shifting Assumptions in Relativity Too Simple to Grasp? 
Neil E. Munch 
There can be little doubt that important assumptions, such as symmetry of length and time variations, shift inappropriately in special relativity (SRT). Such shifts have been obscured by inadequate controls and notation, yet are so important that they likely invalidate both SRT and general relativity (GRT). Six examples are described here showing the extensive nature of assumption shifts and the resultant conflicts. It is true that some particular equations and results are properly tied to their specific subsets of assumptions and therefore valid. Overall, however, selfconflicting results are often commingled in derivations and usage. That produces conclusions which are clearly inappropriate. But authors, having learned of their need, continue to resist introducing the needed assumption controls. Perhaps such practicalities seem too mundane to be seriously considered in this field. 
Astronomical RedShift Quantization and Earth Expansion (~7mm/yr) Techtonics are Compatible 
Martin Kokus 
(blank) 
Bye Bye Big Bang, Hello Reality 
William C. Mitchell 
The sun looses millions ot tons of mass every second in the form ot radiation and solar wind. The same is true of hundreds of billions of stars in all galaxies. Galactic matter and energy also are ejected by other phenomena. Thus galaxies, as well as stars, gradually die. Radiation leaves at c, and much of the matter is ejected at above escape velocity. Most of both goes into intergalactic space. There it accumulates in ‘clouds’ from which new galaxies form in a vast, nonexpanding, recycling universe. (The necessary accretion of matter in a rapidly expanding universe is impossible.) Hydrogen needed for new stars is largely absent in the ejected matter. However, either hydrogen, its component particles, or the energy from which they are formed, is abundant in space. The ejected matter that surrounds galaxies in an approximately inverse square distribution provides the dark matter that flattens the rotation curves of galaxies. Radiation throughout the spectrum is produced in the starforming process, some at which is thermalized by that matter, resulting in the observed microwave spectrum. Either that matter, hydrogen or its components provide the ‘ether’ that results, in tired light Compton scattered redshift Our recycling universe depends on neither relativity, nor on quantum theory in its present imperfect form. 
Censorship, Scientism and Constructivism: Why So Many Have Been So Wrong for So Long 
John E. Chappell 
(blank) 
Circular Motion, Gravitational Potential, and Clocks 
Jim Hodges 
Why the Effect of Circular Motion and Gravitational Potential on Clock Rate Contradicts the Relativity Principle (Time Odyssey II)One million years ago, noon last Sunday, five droids were given the chance of receiving immortality and supreme power over the universe. The droids, which were switched on simultaneously, were commanded to race each other to the age of one million years. One droid chose to position himself at the North Pole. Another droid chose to position himself beyond the orbit of the moon. A third droid chose to position himself outside the orbit of Pluto. The fourth droid chose to position himself outside the rim of the Milky Way galaxy. The fifth droid chose to position himself outside the local group, and at rest with respect to the frame defined by the Cosmic Background Radiation. The paper explains why the fifth droid won the contest, and why his victory falsifies all naked ape science since Galileo. 
Cosmology Based on a Hierarchy of Finite Isolated Systems in an Infinite Cosmos 
Peter F. Browne 
(blank) 
Cosmology: “Contradictions Between Theory and Observations” 
Halton C. Arp 
(blank) 
D. C. Müller’s 1933 Cosmic Ether Model 
Glen W. Deen 
Miller’s paper, “The EtherDrift Experiment … “, was criticized by Shankland in 1955. Shankland’s criticism is flawed, and I attempt to refute it. I also explain Miller’s cosmic model and his data reduction methods. I discovered two minor arithmetic errors in Miller’s Figure 8. Shankland found no errors.
There is no question that the effect observed by Miller is real because two independent sets of observations, (1) the fringe displacement amplitudes and (2) the azimuth of the maximum effect for each tum of the interferometer, produce two independent solutions to the position of the ether wind apex. Those two independent solutions are within ?3? of the mean solution in each of four epochs (February 8, April 1, August 1, and September 15). The observed apexes are within ?1.9? of the calculated apexes. The only weaknesses in Miller’s paper are that the following effects are unexplained: (1) the reduced velocity effect, (2) the displaced azimuth effect, (3) the secular negative fringe displacement in proportion to time, and (4) Miller’s apex is about 850 away from the hot pole of the cosmic microwave background radiation anisotropy dipole, as observed by the COBE satellite. I offer some speculative explanations for each of these effects. 
Didactic Stumbling Blocks in Modern Physics 
Evert Jan Post 
(blank) 
Divergence and Curl: The Fundamental Formulation of Electromagnetic Theory 
Domina Eberle Spencer, Uma Y. Shama, Philip J. Mann 
(blank) 
Einstein’s Light Postulate: a Matter of Convention? 
Antonio Ferrigno 
The Lorentz transformations lead to various paradoxes. We have found nonLorentz transformations which are also in accordance with the postulates of SRT. The existence of these alternative transformations can also be considered a paradox, since then the following question arises: how can one select the “true” transformations among the various possibilities? Furthermore, Einstein suggested that the method used to synchronize distant clocks is a matter of convention. In our opinion this implies that also the 2nd postulate of Einstein is a matter of convention. It should be therefore possible to find transformations linking physical quantities from one “convention” to another. We have explored the possibility of explaining the experimental world (the one observed by means of light) in terms of Galilean transformations and Newtonian laws of nature. Assuming that light propagates in accordance with the Ritz’s postulate (the speed of the light is c in the frame where the source was at rest at the instant of the emission), we arrive at the conclusion that an Observer distorts the position and timing of a moving body in such a way that Einstein’s light postulate holds. 
Electric Field of a Rotated Perfectly Insulating Permanent Magnet 
Gerald N. Pellegrini 
Publications in the American Journal of Physics have been inconsistent on the question of the theoretical prediction of the electric field of a rotating insulating magnet. An earlier paper by Pellegrini and Swift, which claimed to show a discrepancy between the 1913 Wilson’s experiment and theory, sparked the controversy. Later papers have appeared claiming to show that Pellegrini and Swift were in error and that the theory could explain the apparent electric field. This paper confirms the conclusions in the earlier paper of Pellegrini and Swift by showing that, from basic accepted assumptions, a perfectly insulating permanent magnet of constant magnetization rotating about the magnet’s axis of symmetry parallel to the magnetization will produce no electric field in the laboratory according to the standard theory. This prediction appears to be not confirmed by experiment. 
Experimental Difference Between Magnetic Attraction And Repulsion 
Jaroslav J. Kopernicky 
Gravitation’s property of attraction only makes it appear different from electrical or magnetic force. The observations and reasoning in this paper attempt to find an explanation for the gravity as the difference between vectors of attractive and repulsive forces of the total energy content, in favor of attraction. This difference is supposed to be related to the gravitational constant. 
Experimental Test of the Normal and Retrograde Railgun Accelerators 
Francisco J. Müller 
Aluminum and steel rods were used to demonstrate the normal (forward moving) and abnormal (retrograde moving) railgun accelerators respectively. As horizontal rails, two bronze rods were used about 3 feet long each. At one end of each rod a car battery was clamped to electrify the system, which became a closed circuit at the moment of laying the aluminum (or steel) rod across the two rails. Characteristically the aluminum rod advanced in the forward direction as expected (away from the battery bridge)whereas the steel (magnetizable) rod advanced backwardly.When the same system is setup vertically, however, and the transversal rod is suspended on a balance (without rolling), no retrograde behavior is observed for the steel rod. Both, aluminum and steel rods, moved in the forward (expected) direction.The conclusion is that rolling of the steel rod is essential to observe its retrograde motion. A discussion is given in search for explanations of the observed effects. 
Five Sets of Experimental Evidence Which Contradict Special Relativity 
Neil E. Munch 
1) The simplest known experimental evidence is that proper lengths on earth do not reduce to zero when viewed by passing photons at light speed c — yet that’s shown to be required by special relativity (SRT). 2) It is now agreed by at least one establishment physicist (Mermin) that the MichelsonMorley (MM) tests were inconclusive; yet the presumed null MM results were an underlying impetus for the acceptance of special relativity (SRT). Also, the recently discovered frequency “locking” of contraflowing light beams raise questions about MM test efficacy. 3) Forces such as gravity are known to influence path and speed of light beams which contradicts SRT’s second principle of lightspeed constancy. In such curved paths, Coriollis and Foucault pendulum effects illustrate that there is a privileged frame in GRT which contradicts SRT’s first principle. 4) Observed speeds in astronomy commonly exceed lightspeed contradicting SRT. 5) When precise notation is used, it is seen that light speeds vary on a ‘moving’ frame as measured on the ‘stationary’ frame. That contradicts current understanding of SRT’s second principle. 
Fundamental Particles as Structures in Cosmic Gas 
Adolphe Martin 
(blank) 
General Considerations about Mass Variation 
Franco Selleri, Georg Galeczki, Cynthia Kolb Whitney, Clarence L. Dulaney 
(blank) 
Geometry of a Magnetic Monopole 
Jan Peter Roos 
(blank) 
Gravity as a Push from Long Wavelength Background Radiation 
John W. Kierein 
(blank) 
In What Coordinate System Are the Electrodynamic Equations Valid? 
Domina Eberle Spencer, Uma Y. Shama, Philip J. Mann 
(blank) 
Light, Gravity and Einstein’s Twin Paradox 
Paul E. Rowe 
Maxwell’s equations accurately predict the speed of light in various media and the reflectance and refraction of light at media interfaces. In order to make these equations work, Maxwell gave space a definite permittivity and a definite magnetic permeability. A void cannot have such properties. A matrix of unpaired electrons and positive particles would have such properties. As predicted by Einstein, light passing near the sun or other large mass is bent towards the mass. According to Maxwell’s equations, this indicates that space in the neighborhood of large masses has a higher permittivity (dielectric constant) than space far from such masses. This paper assumes that vacuum is a matrix of positive and negative charges. It discusses ramifications of this assumption, suggests a connection between light and gravity and gives a rational. solution to Einstein’S twin paradox. 
Lost in Velocity Space: Problems with the SingleBoost Lorentz Transformation 
Michael H. Brill 
(blank) 
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: The Revival of Alchemy 
Roberto A. Monti 
In 1959 C.L. Kervran shows experimental evidence of Low Energy Transmutations, but contemporary physicists refuse to believe in the experimental evidence in front of them because it would question the interests, widely well established of High Energy Physics. In 1989 Fleishmann and Pons made another Low Energy Transmutation, erroneously called “Cold Fusion”, which drew great attention. High Energy Physicists started a huge campaign to invalidate “cold fusion” in front of the public. In 1996 “The Developing Technology of Transmutations” becomes the fundamental issue ofthe Second Conference on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (College Station, TX). In 1998 the ICCF7 (Vancouver) shows conclusive evidence of Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation Phenomena. The alchemic hints result to be always correct, proving that Alchemy is an experimental science. 21 st century physics will be characterized by Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: the revival of Alchemy. 
Magnetostatics at Speed c 
Richard Oldani 
Three separate subject areas are discussed. In the first, several experiments are described concerning the nature of light and the electromagnetic field. Three of them cannot be explained by either classical or quantum theory, thus demonstrating that a more comprehensive theory of electromagnetic radiation is needed. Next, some theoretical requirements are enumerated that must be satisfied if the concept of “photon” is to be employed in formulating a theory that can be considered complete. In the last section field diagrams are used to show that theory and experiment may be reconciled by conceiving of photons as localized concentrations of magnetic field. 
Making Sense of Time, Space and Gravity 
Ronald Allen Fonda 
After clarification and definition of usage, a brief epistemology of time is presented. Then causality and the nature of observed quantum effects are shown to imply that the time metric is quantized. By this it is meant that the flow of sensible time is interrupted by a cyclic process of formation and collapse of the space(s) created by the intermittent existence of time quanta. The characteristic rate within this cycle (not the passage of clock time!) is C. This coincident association is shown to result in the conflation of significance with regard to time and the “speed of light”. It is demonstrated that this view is consistent with relevant formulae and observation, specifically those in quantum mechanics that describe the relationship of time and energy.Elements from the work of such eminent scientists as deSitter, Eddington, Chandrasekhar, Wheeler, and Hawking are syncretized to suggest the physical mechanisms by which gravity arises from the interaction of space, time and matter! This view can elucidate many of the “problems” in physics, from quantum to cosmic scale. For instance, recent observations of stellar redshift quantization, and the increasing rate of cosmic expansion, are predictable on this hypothesis. 
Mass Variation in Relation to the GPS 
Ronald R. Hatch, Tom Van Flandern 
aka “Implication of Mass Increase From GPS” 
Mathematical Description on Hubble’s Law 
Cameron Rebigsol 
(blank) 
Minkowski’s Scalar Invariant Incompatible with any Equation of Motion 
Georg Galeczki 
Journal of New Energy, Fall 2001 (Proc. Of the 2nd Int. Workshop: Physics as a Science, Galeczki, Marquardt, Wesley Eds.).The first purely mathematical and irrevocable proof of the incompatibility between “Minkowski space” and particle dynamics is presented. “Special” relativity was a tragic confusion between the independent Eulerian x ; y ; z ; t and Lagrangean x(t) ; y(t) ; z(t) coordinates of a particle moving under the influence of forces. Only continuous, field theories like Maxwell’ sdescribed by equations with partial derivatives could, if at all, be described by means of Eulerian coordinates. The dynamics of moving bodies, however, as discrete, atomistic theory, is compatible only with ordinary differential equations with the Lagrangean coordinates as solutions. In both types of theories noninvariant initial conditions are an indispensable part. Minkowski’s expression (ct)(ct)^{2} – x^{2} is, therefore, not an invariant, since xasasolution of an equation of motion contains the framedependent initial velocity. As “transformations leaving Minkowski’s expression invariant”, the Lorentz transformation loses is relevance for particle physics, too. 
New Gaussian Equation for the Force Between Current Elements 
Domina Eberle Spencer, Uma Y. Shama, Philip J. Mann 
(blank) 
Oersted’s Task Remains Incomplete 
Peter Graneau 
The 1998 call for a missing magnetic force law [1] has not produced an answer giving the mutual force and torque between two magnetic dipoles, one being an Amperian current element and the other a paramagnetic (or ferromagnetic) atom. That such interactions exists was the essence of Oersted’s 1820 discovery of electromagnetism. Three responses [2, 3, 4] were published which discuss the subject. A number of scientists have confirmed the experiment of retrograde railgun motion with a steel armature. They submitted their findings in private communications. Of particular interest are two new experimental facts provided by Ligon [5] and Mueller [6].Ligon found that if the armature is a metallic permanent magnet rod, this rod will roll either in the forward or the retrograde direction, depending on the magnetic rod polarity in relation to the direction of current flow through the rod. This seems to prove that the magnetic interaction between rails and armature is superimposed on the electrodynamic Ampere interactions. The missing force law must agree with this finding.
Mueller suspended the whole railgun circuit on strings to form, what we have called, an impulse pendulum [7]. He then found that when the steel rod rolled in the retrograde direction. the rail “recoil” was also reversed and became a forward motion. This proves that the magnetic interaction forces between the rails and the unmagnetized steel armature are definitely mutual attractions overpowering the Ampere electrodynamic repulsions. Some investigators have argued that the retrograde armature motion may be a result of the mechanics of rolling. When the center of the horizontal armature acceleration force lies below the rod axis, they suspect, the rod may roll in the opposite direction to the force. Textbooks on the Newtonian mechanics [8] show this to be incorrect. In slipfree rolling, the instantaneous center of rotation is not the rod axis. but a line through the points of contact between rod and rails. Any horizontal force perpendicular to the rod axis will therefore transport the armature in the same direction as the applied force. regardless of whether this force is applied above or below the rod axis. Nasilowski [2] points out that our understanding of magnetism advanced by three giant leaps during the second millennium. The last of the great discoveries was made by Oersted when he revealed the interaction of a compass needle with an electric current. The microscopic mechanism underlying this discovery has remained concealed in spite of the introduction of field theory, atomism, the electron theory, and quantum mechanics. We’re dealing with a very hard problem. Dring [3] is undoubtedly correct in stressing that more attention should be paid to spins and magnetic moments of fundamental particles. It is interesting that he thinks of spins as consisting of magnetic dipoles. The Ampere current element is such a dipole. Magnetic flux density and Maxwell’s equations are unlikely to be of any help. Retrograde railgun motion is an instance in which B is not equal to (mu)H. Magnetic and electric dipoles not only produce mutual attractions and repulsions; they also give rise to mutual torques. Hughes [4] appears to believe that metallic currentcarrying circuits always tend to deform themselves so that the stored magnetic (potential) energy is minimized. This applies to retrograde rail gun motion but not to the forward motion of a nonmagnetic armature. In the latter case the forward force and motion increases the loop selfinductance and with it the stored energy 1/2LF, where i is the instantaneous current. Worst of all, retrograde rail gun motion literally flies in the face of quantum electrodynamics (QED). In our book [7] we devote a whole chapter to “The railgun: Testbed of the Newtonian electrodynamics”. Field theory and QED require energy to fly from the battery, between the rails, to the armature and give up its momentum on impact with the armature. We have shown that if momentum is conserved. E=mc2 is violated by a huge factor. In QED this traveling energy consists of photons which collide with the electrons of the armature and thereby produce the Lorentz force. Since QED is supposed to account for everything except gravitation and nuclear physics, it should apply to retrograde rail gun motion. The photons must then, somehow, navigate around the armature and strike it in the back. How can intelligent physicists, engineers, and mathematicians be so misled by their teachers? The full paper will outline how retrograde railgun motion contradicts the theories of Faraday, Maxwell, Poynting, Lorentz, Einstein, and Feynman.

On the Spacing of the Planets: A New Fourth Law of Planetary Motion 
Alexander A. Scarborough 
In 1595 Johannes Kepler made the initial attempts to discover the enigmatic Fourth Law of Planetary Motion explaining the geometric spacing of the six thenknown planets. Discovered during the years of 19801995, the mathematical solution is revealed in three sets of geometric diagrams in which each set corroborates the other two in rendering a definitive explanation of how planets came to be in their present orbits around the Sun. Concerning the origins of solar systems and the evolution of planets, this solution is proving to be the crucial key to understanding relevant anomalies, including those of the 29 known extrasolar systems. Together with Kepler’s First Three Laws of Planetary Motion, the Four Laws reveal definitive reasons for the dramatic differences between our multiplanet Solar System and the many singularplanet extrasolar systems in which each giant gaseous planet is too close to its central star to have formed in its unorthodox orbital position via the prevailing concept of planetary formation by the accretion of dust, gas, and/or planetesimals. Substantive corroborating evidence necessitates the rethinking of current beliefs about the origins of solar systems and the evolution of planets. 
Path of a Moving Charge in a Uniform Electric Field 
Domina Eberle Spencer, Uma Y. Shama, Philip J. Mann 
(blank) 
Pauli Pairs and Strong Nuclear Force in Terms of 3rd Millenium Physics 
Martin Müller 
(blank) 
Photon Motion Through the Aether Sea 
John E. Chappell 
(blank) 
Pioneers 10/11 Anomalous Doppler Data and the Space Interfeometry Mission as Evidence Against Special Relativity 
Curtis E. Renshaw 
Anomalous Pioneer 10/11 radio metric data indicate an apparent, constant skewing between predicted and observed Doppler shifts. This indicates a possible acceleration of 8.5 X 108 cm/s2 toward the Sun for both craft. Gravitometric models and systemic problems fail to explain the discrepancy. The anomalous signals, fully accountable in Galilean modeling, seem to indicate an error in the relativistic Doppler equations rather than any newphysics. The Space Interferometry Mission (SIM), due for launch by NASA in 2007, will be able to determine directly whether length contraction (asintroduced by the Earth’s changing motion with respect to the stars) exists. With a resolution of 1 microarcsecond per degree, its resolution far exceeds the expected relativistic effect of +/18 microarcseconds per degree. This project represents the first direct test of relativistic length contraction” in 100 years since that theories introduction. 
Pioneers 10/11 Anomalous Doppler Data Indicate a Preference for Galilean versus Special Relativity 
Curtis E. Renshaw 
Anomalous Pioneer 10/11 radio metric data indicate an apparent, constant skewing between predicted and observed Doppler shifts. This indicates apossible acceleration of 8.5 X 108 cm/s^{2} toward the Sun for both craft. Gravitometric models and systemic problems fail to explain the discrepancy. However, by using Galilean Doppler equations (without the timedilation component of special relativity) in the data reduction algorithms, the “anomaly” disappears. This includes an alleged Earthyear periodic which could have no physical basis as far as the distant spacecraft are concerned. The anomalous signals, fully accountable in Galilean modeling, seem to indicate an error in the relativistic Doppler equations rather than any new physics. 
Reinterpretation of MichelsonMorley/Müller: Propagation in a Preferred Frame 
Hector A. Munera 
(blank) 
Relativity and Reality 
Alex Ceapa 
(blank) 
Revised Applications of the Inverse Square Law as a Foundation for Integrated Physics 
Scott Cahall 
(blank) 
Solid State Nuclear Reactions: Several Convincing Experiments 
Eugene Mallove 
The announcement of “cold fusion” by Drs. Fleischmann and Pons on March 23, 1989 led to a controversy almost unprecedented in the history of science. This talk will present some of the more convincing recent experiments that show that helium4, nuclear scale excess energy, lowlevel neutron production, and the transmutation of heavy elements can occur near room temperature in relatively simple systems. It appears that a new field of solid state nuclear reactions has been born and is progressing toward commercial applications, even as the physical theory behind the associated phenomena continues to be debated among theorists. The salient facts of the history of this scientific controversy suggest that it is inadvisable to rush to judgment against allegedly “impossible” new phenomena when increasingly careful experiments have revealed new vistas in physics. Some of the evidence for solid state nuclear reactions is discussed at http://www.infiniteenergy.com. 
Space and Time Are Better Than SpaceTime (Parts I & II) 
Franco Selleri 
Part 1. Transformations of space and time between inertial systems have been constructed by assuming: (1) Invariance of the two way velocity of light; (2) Retardation by the usual velocity dependent factor for clocks moving with respect to an isotropical system. The so obtained transformations contain a free parameter e_{1}. Different values of e_{1} correspond to different theories of spacetime phenomena. The Theory of Special Relativity (TSR) is recovered for a particular choice of e_{1}. Many experiments are insensitive to the choice of e_{1}: Michelson type, aberration, occultations of Jupiter satellites, radar ranging of planets and so on. There is however at least an exception (see part II).Part 2. A physical quantity rho exists for which the TSR predicts rho: 1 relative to all inertial frames. Under extremely general conditions we show that rho={c+v)/(cv) for all rotating disks having the same peripheral velocity v. This rho must hold in any small region near the disk rim and arbitrarily small acceleration a. Therefore the TSR gives rise to a discontinuity which is unacceptable because all empirical knowledge about inertial systems is obtained in frames with nonzero a, e.g. because of the Earth,s rotation. Elimination of the discontinuity is possible using the set of equivalent theories. The clock synchronization ambiguity in inertial systems is then solved: only e1=0 (corresponding to absolute simultaneity) gives rho{c+v)/(cv) when a goes to zero. Noninvariant values of the one way velocity of light are thus obtained and a new theoretical framework emerges in which space and time are not mixed and the usual relativistic paradoxes are absent. 
Speculation on Theology and Quantum NonLocality 
S. Richard Hazelett 
(blank) 
The Angular Momentum Aether 
Vivian Pope 
Modem physics is split over the question of whether or not there is faster than light actionatadistance. Those who think there is are further split over whether this actionatadistance is ‘pure’ actionatadistance or is mediated by some sort of ‘ether’. But since noone has the faintest idea of what an ‘ether’ is, how can it be decided whether there is one or not?What we do know is that freely moving bodies form holistically balanced systems of angular momentum in which the measured motion of every one body is linked with that of each and every other. Is this nonlocal interconnection to be called ‘actionatadistance’ or ‘ether’? Does it matter? Can nature care whether we choose to think of that nexus as ‘gravitational’, ‘inertial’, ‘electric’, ‘magnetic’, ‘electromagnetic’ or whatever? What difference can it make so long as the observed linking of movements is properly accounted for.We demonstrate that angular momentum, which is the observational common factor in all the different orbital motions is sufficient in itself to explain those motions without the usual theoretical elaborations supplied by the likes of Newton, Faraday, Coulomb, et al. 
The Apparent Constant Velocity of Light 
Paul Marmet 
When we learn that the absolute velocity of light is c, we must explain: With respect to what, does light travel? For example, when we move away from a source at velocity v, how can we explain logically that these photons are reaching us at velocity c and not (cv)? No physical description has ever been presented to explain why the moving observer actually measures the value of c instead of (cv). The standard explanation relies on nonconventional logic such as spacetime distortion. This paper explains clearly why the velocity is really (cv), while the observer’s tools always measure a velocity represented by the number c. This illusion is due to a twoway measurement of the velocity of light. The Sagnac effect and the Global Positioning System (GPS) can measure a oneway velocity of light. We show how the oneway velocity of light is measured as “c+v” and “cv” using the GPS. All these considerations are based on massenergy conservation, Newton physics, and conventional logic. 
The Cosmological Blue Shift 
James Carter 
(blank) 
The Deficient Observations of Light Deflection Near the Sun 
Paul Marmet 
We report a full analysis of one of general relativity’s predictions, which claims that light should be deflected by solar gravity. Experiments using visible light as well as radio signals are examined. The Eddington’s observational expedition, used to confirm Einstein’s predictions on the deflection of light by the Sun, was using a fourinch telescope carried in the jungle. Assuming a perfect optic, the theoretical limit of resolution is 1.25″, but some of the displacements presented were sometimes of the order of 0.01″. In daytime observations, about 30″ resolution is expected. That deflection is so difficult to observe near the Sun in daytime, that even the largest telescope in the world is still unable to confirm it after 80 years. This paper also shows that the corresponding delay for a radio signal passing near the Sun does not permit to get a more reliable result. We show that no one can seriously claim that light is really deflected by the Sun. There are even serious reasons to believe that this phenomenon does not exist. 
The Fluid Space Vortex: Universal Prime Mover 
Fred L. Walker 
Based on recent observations, which are otherwise unexplainable, it was previously hypothesized that the universal space medium behaves as a unique dynamic fluid in which major astronomical bodies rotate at rest in the centers of vast vortex flows. This hypothesis is now further examined to determine if it is feasible in compliance with basic principles of hydrodynamics and mechanics. The nature of the streamline current flows within such a vortex is defined. Gravitational effects which would occur inside such a vortex are analyzed. Supporting observational and experimental evidence is presented, and it is concluded that such vortices do in fact exist in an incompressible fluid medium which occupies all of space, and that they play a major role in universal mechanics. This should apply on macroscopic as well as microscopic scales. Implications are extensive particularly in regard to the formation and orbiting of planets, stars, galaxies, and larger formations. Cause and effect explanations are indicated for a number of current mysteries. 
The Fundamental Flaw in the Theory of the B(3) Magnetic Field 
Geoffrey Hunter 
(blank) 
The Graneau Experiments 
Domina Eberle Spencer, Uma Y. Shama, Philip J. Mann 
(blank) 
The Infinite and the Eternal in Cosmology, from the Evidence 
James B. Wright 
(blank) 
The Key to the Universe: The Electromechanical Analogies 
Robert L. Stilmar 
The Electromechanical Analogies come from the fact that the equations for the electrical and mechanical worlds are of identical form. This means Mass is analogous to Inductance, and since Inductance is created by Current (e.m.u.), Mass must be the result of Ether Current (e.s.u.).The velocity of the latter is the velocity of light, which, then, relates e.s.u. to e.m.u .. And since the gravitational force has been found, experimentally, to be instantaneous, the restoration of the Ether now enables a Universe produced from this substance to hold together if it is rotating. Furthermore, this force has been found to be the result of the rotation of the positive charge, and caused by a Countere.m.f. or Counterforce produced in the creation of Mass. 
The Lorentz Transform 
Sidney Bertram 
(blank) 
The Marinov Motor and Warlock’s Wheel: Conventional Physics with a Twist 
Jeffery D. Kooistra 
The Marinov Motor, as described by Marinov and Wesley, has been the cause of much debate. Experimentation with suspended magnets and rings free to rotate has led to surprising results that nevertheless have a conventional explanation, at least at first order. Marinov’s critical misunderstanding of ms device will be explained, and its ability in some embodiments to demonstrate the violation of Newton’s Third law in strong form will be revealed. 
The Paradox of Changing Time Between Orbiting Clocks and Falling Clocks 
James Carter 
(blank) 
The Principle of Physical Proportions and Some Applications 
Andre K. T. Assis 
(blank) 
The Principle of Relativity Revisited 
Edward G. Apgar 
(blank) 
The Space Interferometry Mission as a Direct Test of Relativistic Length Contraction 
Curtis E. Renshaw 
The Space Interferometry Mission (SIM), due for launch by NASA in 2007, will be able to determine directly whether length contraction exists. As the Earth orbits the sun, its velocity against a given field of background stars changes by 30 km/sec every three months. According to special relativity, this changing velocity introduces a contraction or expansion of the relative spacing between stars of as much as 18 microarcseconds per degree of separation. With a resolution of 1 microarcsecond per degree, more than 100 times more sensitive than any mission to date, SIM’s resolution far exceeds the expected relativistic effect. This project represents the first direct test of relativistic length contraction, just in time for the 100 year anniversary of that theory’s introduction. 
The Special Theory Explained 
Ursula E. K. Light 
Despite moving into longer ago regions, signals from a receding object are received in forwards going time. This amounts to a distance reversal. Those signals are coming stretched into slow motion and as from a lesser distance. Signals sent by an object approaching from such regions will be received forward telescoped as from a greater distance. The details of these processes are fully described, leading also into the need to upend a world view that at present stands on its head. 
The Sun is Orbiting the Star Betelgeuse, a Population II Red, SuperGiant in the Constellation of Orion 
Robert L. Stilmar 
Much evidence now exists that Betelgeuse controls the local cluster of stars in which we reside, with an estimated mass of 14 million that of the Sun. The reasons are: a plane passed through the solar apex, the Sun, and Betelgeuse is found to be perpendicular to the earth’s orbit, the two have equal radial velocities, there is star streaming towards Orion, the motion of new stars is from this place, and Gould’s Great Belt of Stars, of which the Sun is a member, appears to be orbiting something in Orion. Finally, the lack of differential rotation in the Galaxy means that its circulating mass must increase as the cube orbits distance from the center. This requires great mass at the edge of the Galaxy where we are located. Betelgeuse is an obvious candidate for this role. 
Theory of Evolution of Matter in Aethrodynamics 
Steven Rado 
In Aethrokinematics, published in 1994, we gave an approximative theory of the kinematic origin of the known forces of Nature based on the ‘ideal gas model’ of the Aether. This article is a forecast of a part of the second volume, titled ‘Aethrodynamics’. It presents the heuristic theory that matter evolved from the dynamic vorticity of the Aether. The elementary units of matter are permanent flow patterns, condensed under the isotropic constant pressure of the gaseous Aether. This possibility is in agreement with Bernoulli’s principle; an application of the law of the ‘conservation of energy’ in fluiddynamics. The theory renders a conceptual foundation for E = mc^{2}. 
Three Major Errors in Relativity and Cosmology 
Roberto A. Monti 
It is time to make clear three major misinformations commonly taught in schools and universities all over the world:
The “difference”between the Newtonian and the Einsteinian deflection of a beam of light was never “confirmed” after 1919. On the contrary in 1960 experimental results by Pound and Rebka showed that the energy (or mass) of light is subject to Newtonian gravitation in the same way as ordinary matter.

Unified Spiral Field, Matter and Aether: An Introduction to Spiral Field Theory 
Vladimir B. Ginzburg 
The spiral field theory has two principal features: (1) it yields novel relativistic relationships, stating that both the gravitational mass and electric charge of a particle decrease with increase ofits velocity and become equal to zero at the maximum velocity of light; (2) it assumes that the structure of everything in Nature is based on spiral fields. The elementary particles are constructed from toroidal spiral fields while the electromagnetic waves are constructed from helical spiral fields. The masses and electric charges of the spiral fields are defined by a degree and direction of their vorticity. The spiral fields exist at discrete energy levels and transform one into another when their energy levels change. At the lowest (zero) energy level, the toroidal spiral fields reduce to the spherical fields that form the zeropoint energy ether (called dynosphere). The dynosphere performs three main functions: (1) when excited it creates both the outer toroidal spiral fields (or the matter) and the inner toroidal spiral fields with opposite vorticity (or the antimatter); (2) it serves as the medium for propagation of the electromagnetic waves; (3) it provides a dynamic (velocity) frame of reference for moving entities in the universe. While unifying the field with matter and ether, the spiral field theory avoids infamous “infinities.” It confirms several known phenomena, including the structure of hydrogen atom and its atomic spectra. It differently explains several experimental results, including the increase in energy required for acceleration of electrons, the “red shift” in galaxies, etc. It also stimulates a number of propositions related to the structure of elementary particles and atoms. 
What Really Happens in Those Bell Correlation Experiments? 
Caroline H. Thompson 
Do any real experiments demonstrate “nonlocal” correlations? As I shall show, there are other possible explanations for the observations, and these involve nothing more than classical ideas about the nature of light, shared information from the source, and realistic hypotheses as to how the apparatus works. The basic classical explanation has been known from the start. The natural modifications, though, needed to model real experiments, are considerably less well known. The most important of these is associated with the “detection loophole”, which is a major weakness of the variants of Bell’s test most commonly used. Editors, referees and others have convinced themselves that this and other loopholes are unimportant, or that an experiment that blocks just one of them demonstrates a weird quantum effect. This last assumption is illogical, and the whole argument is effectively circular. The loopholes may indeed be unimportant if quantum theory is correct and the “photon” is indivisible, but this is what is under test!The net result of my studies is that there is no evidence here of fasterthanlight effects. 
Why an Orbiting Electron Does Not Collapse into the Nucleus 
Jan Olof Jonson 
An orbiting electron does not collapse into the nucleus of its parent atom, as a consequence of the balance of forces working upon it: The attractive force from the positively charged nucleus and the repulsive force due to centripetal acceleration.<p>If the speed of the electron is assumed to be constant, no net work can be done upon it, it does not lose energi and hence it continues orbiting.Since all the forces working upon the electron are perpendicular to its motion, no work can be done upon it, in spite of the continous change of the direction of the velocity vector.A precondition for the result is the nonexistence of any socalled magnetic field, i.e. only the Coulomb force has to be taken inte account. Elsewhere the author has succeeded in eliminating the very idea of “magnetic fields”, basing the computation of electromagnetic forces solely upon Coulomb’s original electrostatic law. (*)
(*) ‘The Magnetic Force between Two Currents Explained Using Only Coulomb’s Law’, Chinese Journal of Physics, VOL. 35, NO.2, April 1997, Chinese Journal of Physics, pp. 139149. 