Ether (aether) theory articles

The Forces of Nature by Kelland Terry, Ph.D.

The following is a brief summary of some of the articles on ether theory and relativity, which I offer for your consideration.

P. Cornille (1996) published a paper in the Hadronic Journal (19, p215) entitled: “Does the ether exist?” He sums up his views as follows: “In this paper we review several experiments, including the Michelson-Morley experiment, in order to show that contrary to the usual textbook presentation of special relativity all these experiments are consistent with the existence of randomly fluctuating stationary ether.” VES theory fulfills this condition. Our galaxy is filled with a vast number of gravitons traveling more or less at random in all directions.
F. Goy (1996), in Foundations of Physics Letters (9, p165), stated: “In the last two decades, theories explaining the same experiments as well as special relativity does, were developed by using different synchronization procedures. All of them are ether-like theories. Most authors believe these theories to be equivalent to special relativity”.
H.P. Dart (1971) in Spectroscopy Letters (4, p29) had this to say about the various theories concerning light. “The ether-wave theory of light, suitably modified, is fully supported by all known evidence. Further observation and analysis will be required to determine which of its several forms accurately represents reality. On the other hand….the special theory of relativity is not supported by the evidence.”
F. Selleri (1994) in Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, Proceedings of an international Conference, (Sept. p181) summed up the situation this way: “In particular it will be shown that any modification of the coefficients of the Lorentz transformations, however small, gives rise to an ether theory…”. VES theory needs no modification of the Lorentz equation.
D. McCarthy (1993) in Galilean Electrodynamics (8, p116) pointed out the inconsistency between quantum electrodynamics and special relativity.
F. Winterberg (1988) in Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung (43A, 369) proposed “…ether is the cause of all relativistic effects, and for this reason is assumed to obey a non-relativistic equation of motion…” As we shall see, VES ether theory does obey a form of relativity but in a 3-dimensional world.

G. Spavieri (1988) in Foundation of Physics Letters (1, p387) pointed out “The origin of the equilibrium paradoxes of special relativity is analyzed.” “…inconsistency justifies the search for alternative theories such as the modern ether theories.”
N. Cherepkov (1980) in the Journal of Physics B (Atomic and Molecular Physics) (13, L 687) discusses spin polarization of photoelectrons ejected from outer subshells. He stated that “…in most cases the non-relativistic theory is capable of describing the polarization phenomena.”
R. Nedved, B.S. (1992) in Physics Essays (5, p153) stated: “The relativistic answer is insufficient because of the inconsistency between the Doppler relations and the LT relations.” LT is a reference to the Lorentz transformation.
B. Neganov (1991) in an article in the Hadronic Journal (14, p377) entitled “On the principle of relativity and its violation in the case of a spin precession of moving charge articles,” states: “It is found that in the case of a spin precession of particles moving along a curvilinear trajectory, the principle of relativity is violated up to the first order over the parameter v/c.”
R. Santilli (1996) in the Hadronic Journal (19, p41) pointed out that “The inapplicability of both the special and general relativities for interior dynamical problems is beyond credible doubts because of a truly impressive amount of physical evidence, such as: the impossibility of representing locally varying speeds of light, the inability to treat highly nonlinear, nonlocal and nonalgrangian systems, the transparent impossibility of representing interior orbits with continuously decaying angular momentum, gross inconsistencies occurring even in simple physical media…”.
H. Hayden (1995) in Physics Essays (8, p366) stated: “There is abundant evidence to show that SRT (special relativity theory) must, at the very least, engage in tortuous reasoning to explain some experimental results, among them stellar aberration (which in SRT depends upon relative velocity of Earth and star); the Sagnac and Michelson-Gale experiments; the Allen around-the-world Sagnac experiment; the Hafele-Keating experiment; the Brillet-Hall experiment; and the Champeney-Moon experiment.”
Stellar aberration of light occurs when two observers in motion on the Earth see a distant star from two different locations with respect to the line of motion. It was first described by Bradley in 1729 and is the oldest proof that Earth rotates around the Sun.
C. Whitney at Tufts University, (1994) pointed out in Galilean Electrodynamics (5, p98) that “Stellar aberration has been the subject of recent critiques of special relativity theory because of its apparent inconsistency with Doppler shifts. Careful analysis can remove this conflict. But the analysis requires unwelcome recourse to an unwanted coordinate frame reminiscent of absolute space. So even if reconciled with Doppler shifts, stellar aberration remains an embarrassment to special relativity theory.”
P. Naur (1999) in Physics Essays (12, p358) explained that prior to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, stellar aberration was explained by “waves in the ether.”
O. Jefimenko (1998) in Z. Naturforsch (53A, p977) had this to say: “The calculations presented in this paper show that some of the experiments allegedly proving the reality of length contraction and time dilation can be unambiguously interpreted as manifestations of velocity-dependent dynamical interactions taking place within the systems involved in the experiments rather than as manifestations of length contraction or time dilation.” This is precisely what VES ether theory does.

There are many other physicists who have expressed their disbelief in relativity that are not reported here, as well as those who believe in an ether theory. Some of these individuals are mentioned in the discussions that follow. I will now return to VES ether theory. Till then be safe and in good health. Kelland—www.vestheory.com