Abstracts Details

A comprehensive revision of the Unipolar Inductor is presented. The study includes:

- its historical origins, (Faraday, 1832 to 1854)
- the competing theories advanced to explain its operation (fixed line theory; moving line theory; Lorentz's force; Maxwell's (Faraday) flux law; vector potential theory; and Amperian electrodynamic theories (Ampere, Gauss, Weber)
- the thorny problem of seat of emf localization and its proposed experimental resolution by the author
- the vexing problem formulated by Feynman (that Maxwell-Faraday's flux law is not applicable to the inductor)
- a description of the major experimental tests of unipolar induction, including Kennard's 1917 experiment, the author's own modification of Faraday's inductor and some recent experiments (Marinov, Guala-Valverde, etc)
- the most relevant applications: in engineering (homopolar generators; brushless generators, and claimed over-100% efficient generators ); in astrophysics (origin of planetary and cosmic magnetic fields); and most importantly
- the theoretical relevance concerning the applicability or non-applicability of Special and General Relativity theories to the unipolar inductor, both in rotational and translational forms.

Astronomers use the Doppler-shifted absorption (dark) lines in the spectra of moving astronomic bodies to measure their radial velocities respect to Earth. A dark line, however, is the absence of radiation. How, then, can it be red-shifted or blue-shifted in any sense? This paper investigates this problem trying to comply with QM, and with both, the classical Doppler effect and its relativistic version. For relativity this is the problem: the Doppler-shifted dark lines are produced by absorption in the atmosphere of the selfsame star that emits the radiation. So it looks like a Doppler shift without relative motion. For QM the problem is how to harmonize the frequency shift with Planck's quantum relation, *E=hf*, where the frequency *f* is uniquely defined by a given energy level of a given atom in a stationary frame of reference. How can it be Doppler-shifted, by the macroscopic motion of the atom? Between 1918 and 1932, Bohr, Schroedinger, Dirac, and Fermi studied a similar problem, developing a quantum theory of the Doppler effect. They criticized and improved what each other said. Yet, in this paper preference will be given to the complete classical version of the Doppler formula, explained as a double Doppler effect with time difference between emission and reception. A ?bonus? prediction of the paper is a non-relativistic diffraction experiment in which the cosmic motion of the Earth might be detected.

This paper revisits the problem stated by Hayden and Whitney many years ago: ?If Michelson-Gale, why not Michelson-Morley?? With that question in mind a brief review is first made of the most important experiments in the history of Physics designed to detect the motion of a light source with velocity v. The anisotropic terms (c+v) and (c-v) could reveal, or not, the motion of the source within the frame of the moving source. Some of these experiments are: Sagnac (1913), Michelson-Gale (1925), Bradley (1728) and gyro-lasers (1980), all of which showed positive (c ? v) effects. On the negative side are: Michelson-Morley (1887) and its many repetitions, and terrestrial aberration (Muller 1992), which showed no (c ? v) effects in agreement with the Principle of Relativity. The experiments are compared in terms of the velocities involved, the centripetal accelerations, if any, the light times of flight, and most importantly, the geometry of the optical paths in each case.

In the second part of this paper an analysis is made of the experiment performed by five Brazilian scientists (January 2007) whereby they claim to have detected the motion of the Earth towards Leo, by means of a laser diffraction experiment. An attempt to reproduce the experiment in Miami, Florida, in our laboratory, has shown various technical difficulties and has yielded no conclusive evidence as of this writing. A final hypothesis is suggested concerning the reason why the diffraction experiment could yield positive (c ? v) effects in contrast with the null results analyzed in the first part and even with the positive results of Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, gyro-lasers, etc.

It is well known that if a wire of length L moves with a velocity v perpendicularly to a magnetic field B, a voltage is induced along the wire equal to BvL. Reciprocally, if a current I is passed through the wire, a motor force F = BIL tends to move the wire in a perpendicular direction. What is less well known is the case in which the wire is shielded from the magnetic field, for example, inserting it in a coaxial iron cylinder. Inside the shield B = 0. Yet, experiments to be described in this paper show that the same voltage BvL appears on the wire, in spite of the zero B where the wire is located. Likewise, upon passing a current through the shielded wire a motor force is still produced, but this time not on the wire, but on the shielding cylinder. On both instances, the induction and the motor force, are occuring across a field free region. The theoretical perplexities entailed by this ?non-local' phenomena, acting at a distance, are discussed.

A brief historical "tour" of the causality principle is presented, from Aristotle's four-fold view of causality, to its contemporary crisis in Quantum Physics and String Theory. The "tour" touches upon the views of Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Laplace, Bernard, Mach, Hume and Einstein. Several contemporary crises are described (dark energy, multi-dimensionality, probabilism, exploding cosmological constant, pocket universes, multiverses, etc). A final view is proposed (old and yet new) to understand the present crisis, if not to "remedy" it.

Two rarely-asked questions about Oersted's epoch-making experiment of 1820 are formulated: are there any forces acting on the magnetized needle after it has attained its stable perpendicular direction with respect to the current-bearing wire? If so, do they comply with Newton's Third Law? Einstein's view of 1918 strongly affirmed a departure of Oersted's experiment from Newtonian mechanics. A repetition of the experiment, however, performed on an electronic balance, indicates positive answers to the stated questions. Application of Ampere's original theory of 1825, and of conventional electromagnetic theory of the present, both agree with the performed experiment and not with Einstein's misinterpretation of Oersted's original experiment.

A centenary compilation of comments about Einstein?s work clearly shows that an Einsteinian cultural bias has pervaded twentieth-century thinking. The enumeration includes sources not only from Einstein?s critics, but from admirers and followers as well. The topics include among others: Einstein?s ?proof? of Lorentz?s equations; Einstein?s ?proof? of *E=mc*^{2} ; Einstein?s disregard of tidal forces in his equivalence principle; Einstein?s wrong ideas regarding cosmology; the fame that was engineered for Einstein by Eddington with the eclipse of 1919; the enmity that Einstein expressed for quantum physics, a monster the he had helped to create. Einstein?s talent was to use ideas of others, add something of his own, and thereby create a mixture that careful study reveals to make no sense at all. On the positive side, this paper tackles the much more difficult task of reconstructing human intelligence after the Einstein fad has destroyed it. But some starting points are indicated as hope for the future.

Here is an experiment that invalidates Relativistic Electrodynamics. To facilitate understanding it will be presented in two parts, each one in turn subdivided into a rotational case and a translational one.

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.

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.

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=mc^{2} 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=mc^{2}". 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.

A study is made of Amptre's Law and of Lorentz's force, F = q (E + v x B). The former complies with Newton's 3rd Law. The latter does not, but harmonizes with the Special Theory of Relativity. The implications of this conflicting theoretical situation are analyzed.

A comparative analysis is made of the different answers that can be given to the question; what is the distance between two bodies? The physico-mathematical concept emphasizes measurement, extension, geometry and numbers. The physico-philosophical concept emphasizes the interposed bodies (ponderable or ethereal) and the notion of interaction.

Applications are made to the theories of "action at a distance" in Classical physics and to the presumptions (normally ignored) between relatively moving frames in Relativity theory. A difficulty is found in the latter case leading either to the non-uniqueness of the distance between two bodies or to the recovery of absolute simultaneity as a prerequisite for relativistic thought (what Einstein called the "dualistic sin").

A comparison is made of the classical and the relativistic theories of the Doppler effect, with emphasis on the classical and semi-classical sections of Einstein's 1905 paper. One of us (NM) finds that the form and results of special relativity and Doppler equations are sensitive to shifts in assumptions and produce significantly different results -- even reversal of Doppler effects. But, with one set of [2nd principle related] assumptions held constant, a single equation is produced which describes both the special relativity and the Doppler effects in terms of commonly used factors. Other assumptions will likely produce different relationships.

A re-deduction (by FM) of Einstein's Doppler formula from first principles, however, seems to help straighten out contradictions. This requires utmost care in the understanding of relativistic methodology and its diverse ?scenarios" and interpretations (at least three of these are noted). A transient time or initial asymmetric effect, however, persists, which can be demonstrated experimentally, in principle. This favors the classical formula over the relativistic one.

The experimental detectability of absolute rotation in Mechanics (Foucault'S pendulum), in Optics (Michelson-Gale's 1925 interferometer) and in Electromagnetism (Faraday's unipolar inductor of 1832), contrasts with the undetectability of absolute and linear translation in Mechanics (Newtonian inertia), in Optics (Michelson-Morley 1887 experiment) and in Electromagnetism (Trouten-Noble 1903, Tomaschek 1927).

Philosophical, mathematical and physical reasons are searched out for these well established experimental contrasts. Among the physical factors the relationship between the shape of a moving magnet in relationship to the geometry of its motional trajectory is singled out as having a crucial and unexpected importance. Similar considerations are extended to the optical experiments.

Allan *et al* claimed in 1985 to have demonstrated a terrestrial rotational Sagnac effect (amounting to a [] of about 240-350 nonoseconds) by means of an around-the-world system of GPS satellite signals. This effect was previously demonstrated by Michelson and Gale in 1925. The much longer distances available with the satellites, however, generate bigger time differences (in the order of thousands of nanoseconds) in addition to the rotational Sagnac effects. The authors attribute these large deviations to inherent differences in the clocks, uncertainty of satellite ephemeris, etc. It is contended here, however, that these large differences represent solar (*i.e.* orbital) and even galactic Sagnac effects. An inductive analysis of the data and a subsequent deduction from first principles leads to the latter conclusion. A discussion of the results follows.

The relativistic requirement of relative motion between a conductor and a magnet to produce electromagnetic induction is critically re-examined both historically and by original experiments. That no such requirement is needed for a rotating system was demonstrated by Kennard in 1917 and is acknowledged by some relativists, who have therefore resorted to General Relativity for an explanation of the rotational unipolar inductor. But the additional experimental tests with a modified, rectilinear version of the unipolar inductor reported here rule out General Relativity as well. There appears therefore to be a need for some new theoretical formulation of the problem, based either on classical (Maxwellian or Amperian) electrodynamics or on an altogether new approach.

A modified version of Faraday's unipolar inductor is presented. A special circuit is employed to reveal the portion of the circuit which has the seat of the unipolar induced emf. Historical questions concerning unipolar induction are thereby finally answered here: 1) The magnetic field lines do not rotate when a magnet is rotated. 2) Relative motion of the rotating disk and magnet is not essential to induce an emf. 3) Maxwell's flux rule is not always applicable.