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. ”

Lutz Kayser

Rocket pioneer Lutz Kayser provides the following:

Falsification of Einstein Theory of Relativity
Professor Lutz Kayser, Director
Pacific Institute of Physics and Space Technology

Full Text Link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1501.0226v1.pdf

  “ We who sat in the first year physics lectures remember the astonishment and exclamations of disbelief of our classmates when Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity was introduced: Postulates of constancy of velocity of light c relative to the observer and the Galilean Principle independent of velocity. It first seemed easy to understand, but the weird consequences of time dilation, length contraction, velocity and acceleration transformation, and the twin paradox were hard to believe. Then followed the explanation by the lecturer that all these consequences are counterintuitive and “this is an example why physicists should not follow intuition”! However, SR and GR are not only counterintuitive but also illogical and false. ”

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. ”

http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

  “ The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels. ”

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 ”

The Farce of Physics

The Farce of Physics
Dr. Brian G Wallace

  “ There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes. (...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it." ”

Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed so one can find stylistic imperfections, undeveloped ideas etc.