Criticisms of Relativity Theory

Criticism of the Foundations of the Relativity Theory
Dr. Sergey N. Arteha (bio),
Deputy Chief of Department of the Space Research Institute,
Russian Academy of Sciences

PDF Full Text Link (HTML Version)

  “ Contrary to the artificially maintained judgement, that modern physics rests upon some well-verified fundamental theories, too frequently the ad hoc hypotheses appear (for a certain particular phenomenon), as well as science-like adjustments of calculations to the 'required result', similarly to students’ peeping at an a priori known answer to the task. The predictive force of fundamental theories in applications occurs to be close to zero (contrary to allegations of 'showman from science'). ”

Antirelativitic Library

Dr. Sergey N. Arteha has collected a number of anti-relativity works in his Antirelativistic Library

Quotes

Walter Babin of the The General Science Journal says:

  “ The failure of leading physics journals to accept papers critical of theories such as relativity, amounts to a particularly insidious form of censorship. It is one of the principle reasons for 100 years of stagnation in theoretical physics. ”

Dr. Vadim A.Zhmud (bio) at Novosibirsk State Technical University tells us:

  “ RT is erroneous: there exist conclusive disproofs of RT, but a basis for RT is absent. There appear some new possibilities for progress in physics. RT brings a prejudice to Science, but the refute from RT can present adequate predictions. ”

Dr. Arkadiusz Jadczyk (bio) at the International Institute of Mathematical Physics, France, comments:

  “ While it is the fact that unconventional and interesting ideas (like those of Lavrentev, Eganova, Santilli,Shipov) are rejected and/or ignored by the institutionalized science, it is also true that the same unconventional scientists often reject or ignore offers for the help from their colleagues that may like to criticize some of the elements of their theories. This creates a vicious cycle and the spooks, politicians, and the military, who want to keep any real discovery in secret, and "normal scientists" in confusion, rejoice. ”

Professor Ruggero Maria Santilli, Ph.D. (bio) maintains:

  “ "Curved space" exists only in the imagination of the proponents of relativity theory. ”

Special Relativity

naturalphilosophy.org states:

  “ There have been hundreds of papers and dozens of books written on the refutation of special relativity over the last 100 years.

One such refutation is by Dr. Ricardo Carezani who shows that the concept of two or more frames of reference are redundant both mathematically and physically. ”

Fizeau Experiment

From the peer-reviewed Journal of Physical Mathematics:

Optical Fizeau Experiment with Moving Water is Explained without Fresnel's Hypothesis and Contradicts Special Relativity
Gennadiy S and Vitali S

Direct Link to Paper

Abstract: "Fizeau experiment actually proves not partial, as the special relativity asserts, but complete dragging of the light by moving medium. The decrease of the fringe shift in the Fizeau's two-beam interferometer is explained not with wrong Fresnel's aether drag hypothesis but with the phase deviations arising in the interfering beams because of Doppler shift of the frequencies. Fizeau experiment does not prove but, on the contrary, refutes Einstein's theory of relativity."

Louis Essen

Dr. Louis Essen (bio) has spent a lifetime working at the NPL on the measurement of time and frequency. He built the first caesium clock in 1955 and determined the velocity of light by cavity resonator, in the process showing that Michelson's value was 17km/s low. In 1959, he was awarded the Popov Gold Medal of the USSR Academy of Sciences and also the OBE. Dr. Essen was a noted critic of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

Special Relativity: A Critical Analysis

In his Special Relativity: A Critical Analysis, Dr. Essen writes:

  “ It is a common view that the special theory of relativity is well supported by experimental evidence, although this may not be true of the general theory. For example, W Heisenberg (1958) stresses the experimental support and concludes that in consequence the theory belongs to the firm foundations of modern physics and cannot be disputed. It may be surprising, therefore, to find that a more critical examination of the experiments and experimental conditions suggests that there is no experimental support for the theory.

...The experiments of Michelson-Morley type cannot be taken as supporting the theory, because the theory was developed in order to explain the null result that was obtained. ”

Dr. Essen concludes that   “ A critical examination of Einstein’s papers reveals that in the course of thought–experiments he makes implicit assumptions that are additional and contrary to his two initial principles. ”

Relativity: Joke or a Swindle?

From Dr. Essen's article Relativity: Joke or a Swindle? in Electronics & Wireless World we read:

Louis Essen re-states his view that Einstein's theory of relativity contains basic and fatal flaws.

  “ Claims frequently made that the theory is supported by experimental evidence do not withstand a close scrutiny.

...Why have scientists accepted a theory which contains obvious errors and lacks any genuine experimental support? It is a difficult question, but a number of reasons can be suggested. There is first the ambiguous language used by Einstein and the nature of his errors. Units of measurements, though of fundamental importance, are seldom discussed outside specialist circles and the errors in clock comparisons are hidden away in the thought experiments.

Einstein's use of a thought experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which fooled himself and generations of scientists.

Then there is the prestige of its advocates. Eddington had the full support of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Society and scientific establishments throughout the world. Taking their cue from scientists, important people in other walks of life referred to it as an outstanding achievement of the human intellect. Another powerful reason for its acceptance was suggested to me by a former president of the Royal Society. He confessed that he did not understand the theory himself, not being an expert in the subject, but he thought it must be right because he had found it so useful. This is a very important requirement in any theory but it does not follow that errors in it should be ignored.

Insofar as the theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle ”