Member

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 non-substantive 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.

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.

Sagnac's experiment (1913) and many repeats thereof. including constant examples from GPS satellites, have provided strong evidence in support of the aether's existence that Michelson and Morley did not provide in 1887. They tell us that the velocity of a light beam remains fixed relative to a preferred coordinate system (cs), while the cs of the source of the beam rotates relative to the preferred cs. Something has the function of fixing this velocity; although we may know nothing of its nature, we can still identify and name it on the basis of this function. We do the same in the case of gravity. Conceptualizing about the nature of the aether is most reliably done by sticking to known facts. Space is seething with photons that are more abundant in the lower energy ranges (Grote Reber). These photons may be the prime component of the aether. The passage of a comparatively high-energy photon. along a zigzag path, delivers energy to a receiver and also induces wave motion in the aether (Steven Rado argues that a gaseous aether can support waves that are not strictly transverse).

Why do academic physicists fail to discover the flaws in special relativity (SR)? In distinct contrast to. e.g. the earth sciences, physics protects its most revered dogmas by excluding their critics from its ranks. Also, in choosing its paradigms. physics tends to be motivated by non-scientific criteria, as Tom Kuhn showed to be common in science. Constructivism, derived largely from his thought, would interpret the concepts of modem physics not as reflections of reality. so much as cultural constructs, stemming from a paradigm involving disdain for logic and common sense. and favoritism for the illogical and the bizarre. Yet it is not so easy to dispense with logic: if a theory is illogical - say if it violates the law of non-contradiction - it can never be confirmed by experiment. What are now considered confirmations of SR can. like most other empirical data. be interpreted in more than one way: as well as involving illogic, there are also logical ways, most of them consistent with a Newtonian approach.

Examples of censorship and suppression are widespread in academia. Great progress has come from tolerance in earth sciences; but harsh intolerance rules in social sciences, vs. natural-environmental influences, and in physics, vs. rationality and objectivity: both involve disdain for common sense. Links between skeptics' groups and establishment science. The situations in Russia and Germany. Discussion on how to cope with the intolerance.

Special relativity (SR) is a construct of the subcultur. of physics, not a certain reflection of reality. It is inferior to various other theories that explain the same evidence because It is based on Invalid logic: its two postulates contradict each other, and each commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. The simultaneity thought experillent 15 totl:l1ly invalidated by violating the law of noncontradiction; suggestions are made on how to reinterpret it rationally in terms of aether theory.

The formula fer variability of energy in light particles emitted by a moving source was confirmed by Ives and Stilwell in 1938 only for line-of-flight and perpendicular directions. It can be proven by basic trigonometry that the general formula fer all directions is identical. In this analysis the gamma factor modifies c, but not d, t, or m. Possibly this result could be used to show why force on a mov1og charge varies as it does.

Why is it so difficult for academic physicists to grasp the major errors in their current paradigms? For one thing, at all levels, dissenters against their most fundamental beliefs are removed from their system. For another, they choose their scientific paradigms by non-scientific criteria, as Kuhn has showed has occurred often in the history of science. Their bias seems to be in favor of the bizarre and the irrational, and against common sense. This is a peculiar exaggeration of the tendency to overevaluate human creativity that typifies western culture, and it defines their special subculture therein. In terms of the relativistic evaluations of constructivism. modern physics represents not the real world, so much as a cultural construct, devised in harmony with this special bias. Advocates of special relativity (SR) pay scant attention to relativism in general, and to the fact that its most basic proposition is that meaning and truth are contingent on viewpoint and context--even as in SR, time, length, and mass depend on relative motion. Thus they fail to understand that those with other viewpoints, not biased in favor of the bizarre and irrational and frankly promoting common sense, can legitimately interpret in other ways the allegedly solid evidence in favor of SR. Thus we find a paradox about SR more mystifying than any involving clocks or twins: how is it that this most famous of all relativistic doctrines is defended by untenable absolutist interpretations of the experimental evidence?

Just as with gravity, the ultimate nature and mode of operation of the aether remain a mystery; but also just as with gravity, we can be sure it exists because of what it does. And we can define<\i> the aether in terms of this function<\i>: it is whatever causes light paths in Sagnac-type experiments to remain fixed in the coordinate system of the lab. It may also have other functions, such as transmitting gravitational force, and stimulating molecular motion or heat. In trying to discover the nature of the aether, it seems wise to deal as much as possible with facts we already know. Rather than assuming a substance that transmits waves but whose composition is totally unknown, why not start with particles that we know for sure exist in space, and build our concept of the aether from these? We know space is full of photons, and from Grote Reber's radio astronomy we know they become more abundant as we move toward the low-energy end of the spectrum. In the dense sea of photon or aether particles thus envisioned, clearly no photon can travel far without colliding with other particles. These collisions produce indirect paths, varying in amplitude and length depending on the speed of the emitting source, which is added to that of the photon. This occurs in harmony with Newton's Third Law. Furthermore, the time it takes for a photon to traverse a given segment of aether depends on the density of the aether. This view allows us to explain all evidence, only apparently<\i> inconsistent, for both principal types of alternative theories: (1) additive; and (2) aether-based non-additive.