View source for Criticisms of Relativity Theory

'''Criticism of the Foundations of the Relativity Theory'''<br>
Dr. Sergey N. Arteha ([https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Sergey_N_Arteha bio]),<br>
Deputy Chief of Department of the Space Research Institute,<br>
Russian Academy of Sciences

[http://vixra.org/pdf/1201.0082v1.pdf PDF Full Text Link] ([http://www.antidogma.ru/english/relbookeng.html HTML Version])

{{cite|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 [http://www.antidogma.ru/library/index_en.html Antirelativistic Library]

==Quotes==

Walter Babin of the The General Science Journal [http://www.antidogma.ru/appeal_en.html says]:

{{cite|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 ([https://www.sgem.org/documents/committee/Zhmud.pdf bio]) at Novosibirsk State Technical University [http://www.antidogma.ru/appeal_en.html tells us]:

{{cite|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 ([http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/jadczyk_cv.html bio]) at the International Institute of Mathematical Physics, France, [http://www.antidogma.ru/appeal_en.html comments]:

{{cite|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}}

Professor Ruggero Maria Santilli, Ph.D. ([http://www.i-b-r.org/Ruggero-Maria-Santilli.htm bio]) [http://www.antidogma.ru/appeal_en.html maintains]:

{{cite|"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'''<br>
Professor Lutz Kayser, Director<br>
Pacific Institute of Physics and Space Technology

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

{{cite|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=

[https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Special_relativity naturalphilosophy.org states]:

{{cite|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 [https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title&#61;Ricardo_L_Carezani 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 

{{cite|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'''<br>
Gennadiy S and Vitali S

[https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/optical-fizeau-experiment-with-moving-water-is-explained-withoutfresnels-hypothesis-and-contradicts-special-relativity-2090-0902-1000207.php?aid=86879 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==

British physicist Dr. Louis Essen ([https://www.britannica.com/biography/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 [https://www.scribd.com/document/360703796/The-Special-Theory-of-Relativity-A-Critical-Analysis-Louis-Essen-digitized-copy Special Relativity: A Critical Analysis], Dr. Essen writes:

{{cite|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 {{cite|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 [https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm 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.''

{{cite|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}}

===Relativity and Time Signals===

In October of 1978 Essen published a paper titled ''Relativity and Time Signals'' in the Wireless World journal. Dr. Essen told us:

{{cite|the comparison of distant clocks by
radio is now a precise and well known technique. This was not the case
in 1905, when Einstein published his famous paper on relativity and
there is some excuse for the mistakes he made in the thought-
experiments he described in order to determine the relative rates of two
identical clocks in uniform relative motion. But there is no excuse for
their repetition in current literature. The mistakes have been exposed in
published criticisms of the theory, but the criticisms have been almost
completely ignored; and the continued acceptance and teaching of
relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of
electromagnetic theory.

These criticisms were rejected by Nature [the most prestigious
journal in science]. It could be argued that the truth will eventually
prevail, but history teaches us that when a false view of nature has
become firmly established it may persist for decades or even centuries.
The general public is misled into believing that science is a mysterious
subject which can be understood by only a few exceptionally gifted
mathematicians. Students are told that the theory must be accepted
although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged
right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favour of
dogma. Since the time of Einstein and of one of his most ardent
supporters, Eddington, there has been a great increase in anti-rational thought and mysticism.}}

Essen also remarked “No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects”.

==The Farce of Physics==

[https://web.archive.org/web/20110709033504/http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm The Farce of Physics]<br>
Dr. Brian G Wallace

{{cite|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.

==Anthony Standed==

The chemist and entomologist Anthony Standen ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Standen bio]) said:

{{cite|Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do
this he had to take something else, which was the velocity of
light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an
extraordinary place in modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to
make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow
within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest
Absolute in the history of human thought. There is a
textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now
accepted as a faith.” This statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately
only too true.}} —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow,
(Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.

==Eureka Alert==

A mainstream science news website ''Eureka Alert'', a service of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, published the following:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php

'''The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically'''<br>
''A paper titled 'Challenge to the special theory of relativity' to be published on Physics Essays''

INTERNATIONAL NAC SOCIETY
     
{{cite|At present, mainstream physicists seem to have fully accepted Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and to take it as the foundation of modern physics because the theory appears perfectly logical and its predictions seem to be supported by numerous experiments and observations. However, if one re-examines these experiments carefully and with an open mind, serious problems may emerge. The paper has examined many experiments that are considered as the evidences of relativistic effects, but found they either have null effects or are wrongly interpreted or calculated. For example, the behaviours of clocks in Hefele-Keating experiment interpreted as the results of relativistic time dilation caused by the relative speed of an inertial reference frame are actually absolute and do not change with the change of inertial reference frames; the corrected calculation of Fizeau experiment based on Newton's velocity addition formula is much closer to the experimental measurement than the result calculated based on the relativistic velocity addition formula. In fact, Hefele-Keating experiment indicates the existence of a medium in the space that can slow down the frequencies of atomic clocks when they have velocities relative to the medium, and Fizeau experiment reveals the existence of a medium called aether relative to which the speed of light is constant, though it is possible that the medium to slow down atomic clocks may be different from aether as multiple media may coexist in the space.

The existence of aether means that the two postulates of STR are wrong for light and electromagnetic waves because the speed of light and the electromagnetic wave equations should be valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local aether, just like the acoustic wave equation valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local air.

The paper has cleared the definition of the physical time and proved that the time of a physical clock is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation i.e. an invariant of inertial reference frames same as Galilean time. The Lorentz invariance of the clock time makes it possible to synchronize clocks in all inertial reference frames to produce the absolute and universal physical time as demonstrated in the universal synchronization of all the satellite clocks and ground clocks of the global positioning system. Therefore, the time of the STR is no longer the physical time measured with physical clocks.

Moreover, the paper has further proved that Lorentz Transformation is the same as to redefine time and space as functions of Galilean time and space to produce an artificially constant speed of light in all inertial reference frames. The relationship between the STR space-time and Galilean space-time has revealed that the time dilation and length contraction of the STR in a moving inertial reference frame observed on the stationary inertial reference frame are just illusions. Using the relationship can also prove that the real speed of light measured with clocks still follows Newton's velocity addition formula, which directly falsifies the postulate that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames.

All these findings lead us to conclude that the STR as a theory of physics is wrong. Thus, all relativistic spacetime model based physics theories (electromagnetic theory, quantum field theory, general theory of relativity, big bang theory, string theories, etc) become questionable. Disproving the STR and other related theories of physics will not lead to any crisis but instead open a new room for scientists to develop new theories for all the known and unknown physical phenomena. The paper has proposed a new experimental setup with which scientists will be able to measure the velocity of aether wind anywhere in the reachable universe and determine the velocity field of aether in the space for studying the dynamics of aether. The dynamics of aether may lead to the discovery of new methods to propel our space ships to speeds close to or even faster than the speed of light as the speed limit imposed by the STR is no longer valid, though there should exist an extremely difficult barrier for us to surpass the speed of light in the aether just as to surpass the sound barrier in the air.}}

==International Conference on Problems of Space and Time in Natural Science==

In 1991 participants of the 2nd
International Conference on Problems of Space and Time in Natural
Science, from the USSR, the USA, Canada, Italy, Great Britain,
Germany, Brazil, Austria, Switzerland and Finland issued the following
declaration:

{{cite|Due to prohibiting or hashing up the publications which contradict
Einstein 's theory, modern theoretical physics and astrophysics have
come to a crisis. We propose to give up teaching relativity theory in
secondary schools, which would give time for studying the origin and
development of classical methods in mechanics and physics. Teaching
relativity theory in higher educational institutions ought to be
accompanied by discussions of alternative approaches.}}

=Quotes=

{{cite2|physical concepts are free creations of the human mind and are not,
however it may seem, uniquely determined by the physical world|Albert Einstein, Evolution of Physics, 1938}}

==See Also==

:*[[Michelson-Morley Experiment]]
:*[[Sagnac Experiment]]
:*[[Airy's Failure]]
:*[[Aether]]

[[Category:Relativity]]