As stated in the previous "Letter to the Readers" which opens this volume, during the second half of the last Century (after World War II, and after the worldwide consecration of Albert Einstein's "authority"- by the way, due to a doubtful connection between relativity, the famous formula E = mc² , and the construction of the atomic bomb - as a result of the nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki ), the publication of papers expressing criticism of or alternatives to relativity has almost been banned by "normal" scientific journals (justified by the claim that: only a crank would challenge Einstein). This attitude has on the one side almost totally discouraged the production of free critical thought, and on the other side has crystallized the foundations of established Physics in a system of dogmatic immobility, a situation which forced many intellectuals (not only physicists) to understand scientific knowledge as a kind of "religion" (a thought system in which beliefs cannot be checked by laymen, or not even really "understood" - see for instance, in this same issue of Episteme, Marinov's complaints, or Theocharis' contributions).

Even today, things are continuing in this manner, as far as leading scientific journals are concerned, but the increasing diffusion of the Internet has allowed greater freedom of expression and communication, and this has supported the acquisition of unconventional news and points of view, thus showing that discomfort towards the actual establishment's philosophy of Nature and of Science is rather widespread. In this page, we offer some interesting examples of this "resistance", which becomes more and more worth of attention, the more some investigations could lead to unexpected and very positive practical consequences (see for instance Aspden's mention below of an "unseen sea of energy that we inhabit in ignorance of its overwhelming power").

We are ending this short presentation with an almost obvious consideration: while censorship of ideas has become less effective, the web's information content has become so large that even a willing reader is at risk of getting lost in a maze of too many inputs, some of which must truly be classified in the realm of day dreams, if not of voluntary disinformation...

[Thanks to Josef Hasslberger, Francisco J. Müller, Delbert Larson, for their valuable support and cooperation]

1) Aetherometry - The Science of the Metrics of the Aether,
http://www.aetherometry.com/

2) Aether Sites, http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/wc_sites.html

3) Apeiron - Studies in infinite nature, http://redshift.vif.com/

4) (Various papers about) Extracting Energy from the Active Vacuum,
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm

5) Galilean Electrodynamics, http://www.galileanelectrodynamics.com/

6) Infinite Energy Magazine, http://www.infinite-energy.com

7) Journal of New Energy, http://www.padrak.com/ine/

8) Journal of Theoretics, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com

9) Astronomy Research - Scientifically viable challenges to mainstream paradigms,
http://metaresearch.org/

Something has gone wrong in the field of astronomy. Many widely held beliefs fly in the face of observational evidence. Theories go through such contortions to resolve inconsistencies that the ideas can no longer be explained in simple language. Alternative ideas are often rejected out of hand simply because they challenge the status quo. The result... many of today's theories are unnecessarily complex. Meta Research is dedicated to bringing some common sense back to this field. Here we challenge ideas that have consistently failed to make successful predictions, examine new paradigms, and advocate the ideas found to be most worthy of further consideration and testing. [...]

10) Modern Scientific Theories of the ancient Aether,
http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aetherqr.htm

11) Natural Philosophy Alliance, http://mywebpages.comcast.net/deneb

The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels, of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity. Such reforms have long been urgently needed; and yet there is no area of scholarship more stubbornly censorial, and more reluctant to reform itself.

Reigning paradigms in physics and cosmology have for many decades been protected from open challenge by extreme intolerance, excluding debate about the most crucial problems from major journals and meetings. But the founding of the NPA in 1994 provided those struggling against this irrationality and intolerance with the strength, visibility, and credibility that comes from numbers and from collaborative, purposeful effort. It has also enabled them to share, expand, and refine their individual knowledge through contact with many other critical scholars, at NPA general meetings--held at least once per year since 1994--and by phone and mail, both postal and electronic. [...]

12) Sapere Aude, http://www.btinternet.com/~sapere.aude/
(from Dec. 2002: http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/fis/sapere_aude.html)
Reclaiming the common sense foundations of knowledge
The site seeks to further the debate about the foundations of knowledge by facilitating access to the arguments of critics of orthodoxy. Because of the perennially central role the natural sciences, critical arguments focus on the presuppositions, concepts and methods of modern physics, and especially on the cognitive revolution associated with special relativity ("anti-relativity").

13) The Subspace Project, http://www.martinelli.org/

Why an Aether? Its almost a commonly known fact that the aether was disproven by an experiment done almost one hundred years ago, by a couple of physicists whom we know as Michelson and Morely (see "Is the Speed of Light Constant" ). Given that, An obvious question might be then, "why should we re-visit this idea?". There are a few reasons why we should. The first point I should make is that the aether theory that was disproven by the Michelson and Moreley experiment was that conceived by 19th century physicists. This only means the first aether conception was wrong, not that there is no aether.

Furthermore, new scientific research is a process of "turning over stones". We are simply not smart enough to know which 'stones to turn' or what we will find underneath. Sometimes we can find things of interest , most times not -- but, sometimes you get "spin-offs".

When it comes to basic research it is unfortunately hard to guess at any kind of a return on investment. The Michelson and Morley experiment is one example of an unexpected ROI. They were doing basic research - just doing the sweeping - after all the great discoveries had finally been made. They were measuring the drift velocity of the earth through the aether. Every physicist expected that the Michelson and Morley experiment (because of the extremely precise Michelson Interferometer) would give some number for the earth's drift velocity through the aether. This number was the expected ROI. Instead they found no drift velocity whatsoever. In fact, if we were to use their results to calculate the velocity of the earth with respect to the aether we would have to say that the earth is at absolute rest - not even orbiting the sun!. This was far more interesting and valuable than the expected ROI. They found 'gold' - a new principle - a new physical law. … "the speed of light is constant for all frames." With this new law, physics took a very unexpected turn. This find was one of the key ingredients to today's modern physics. It gave Einstein the foundation upon which all of his work was built. And this gives us another observation… As the turn of the century was approaching, physicists believed that physics was nearly done. This turned out to be wrong - way wrong. This is a pattern in science history. In fact, it is not too far off to state this as a principle, that "established science is often wrong". [...]

Are There Aether Atoms? Yes, but they are not what you might expect. [...]

14) Sur la piste de l'Energie Libre, http://quanthomme.free.fr/CHERCHEURS1.htm

15) 21^st Century Science & Technology, http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com
 

1) http://www.energyscience.co.uk/index.html

Aether Science Papers
by: Harold Aspden

This is not a commercial website. It is an educational site operated on a non-profit basis by Energy Science Ltd. under the direction of Dr. Harold Aspden, who in his retirement years provides the financial support needed to sustain this venture. Dr. Aspden acknowledges his gratitude to the Internet facility for providing the means to tell the world about his lifelong exploration of the unseen sea of energy that we inhabit in ignorance of its overwhelming power.

The book Aether Science Papers was published in 1996. [...] The 14 papers, reproduced in A4 format from the scientific periodicals in which they were first published, constitute the main section of the book. The front section of the book is a 68 page commentary entitled The Creative Vacuum. In view of the importance of making scientists aware of this work, it has been decided to publish the opening 68 pages here in these Web pages.

About the Title: The 'aether' is a word which says that there is no such thing as empty space. To say there is no aether is therefore to assert that space can be truly empty, meaning it contains nothing of an electrical character, it now being a well established fact that there is nothing having a physical existence that lacks electrical properties. If a scientist expresses doubt by reference to the 'neutron', I say that the neutron has magnetic properties which are seated in the motion of electric charge. Otherwise, you need to explain why it has a magnetic moment. If that scientist then mentions the 'neutrino', then I say that the 'neutrino' was only a notion, a figment of imagination invented as a devious way of declaring that the aether could absorb or shed energy and momentum without admitting that the aether exists. If that scientist says that the consensus opinion of professors of physics who deny the reality of the aether can surely not be discarded, then I ask "Why not?" and can but point to a report on page 12, 6 May 1996 issue, of The Times newspaper in U.K. Science correspondent Nigel Hawkes wrote under a heading 'The possibility of getting something for nothing': "A physicist at Cambridge University has produced a new and daring explanation for an old puzzle. If she is right, it could be the first convincing evidence that it is possible to get something from nothing. The question Claudia Eberlein addresses in a forthcoming issue of Physical Review Letters is that of sonoluminescence. If you expose water to a blast of ultrasound, you get a flash of light. This is deeply puzzling, because visible light has so much more energy than sound that the energy of the sound has somehow to be boosted by a trillionfold. The wavelength of the light emitted implies that the source is at a temperature of tens of thousands of degrees C. Ms Eberlein suggests that the emission of light is a quantum vacuum effect - energy given off by the vacuum. Quantum theory says that there is in reality no such thing as a vacuum and that empty space teems with 'virtual particles' including photons which flit in and out of existence. The theory is open to test. If it turns out to be right, her explanation will be a major coup, the first observable manifestation of quantum vacuum radiaton."

The energetic vacuum is, therefore, a live issue. The 'aether' is a reality and I believe that it can, like a fluid crystal, form structure and dissolve that structure, as it latches onto material substance, but if that substance vibrates excessively then even the aether is confounded and, in its confusion, it sheds energy! I have, accordingly, chosen the title Aether Science Papers with deliberation, knowing that, in the end, the 'aether', per se, will have to be recognized, even though that will confound the non-believers who constitute the modern generation of physicists.

2) http://mujweb.cz/veda/babiakjoz/MMX%20New%20view.htm

Michelson-Morley's Experiment - A New View
by: Jozef Babiak

Michelson-Morley's experiment carried out in 1887 should determine absolute velocity of the Earth around the Sun in the hypothetical "aether". Negative results of this experiment, why the shift of the interference fringes does not appear when rotating the interferometer in the angle of 900, explained in 1892 Fitzgerald and independently of him Lorentz with the contraction hypothesis. Einstein in 1905 built his Special Theory of Relativity on validity of the contraction hypothesis and on the principle of constant velocity of light in vacuum. [...] The calculation of the shift of the interference fringes that should appear by absolute velocity of the Earth around the Sun, is in literature given as follows: [...] This calculation of the shift of the interference fringes in the Michelson - Morley's experiment is incorrect, because it is calculated according to the laws of the classic Newton's mechanics - using Galileo's transformations. Michelson - Morley's experiment is a physical experiment with light, therefore calculation of the shift of the interference fringes should be calculated according to the optics' laws. Light in its nature (photons, electromagnetic oscillation) and with its way of propagating in the solid environment (Snell's law, Huygens' principle) differentiates with its characteristics from solid bodies to that are valid the laws of the Newton's mechanics. Light - photons - are atom particles which by interactions with atoms of the solid environment create the optics' laws, therefore we can not describe the propagation of the light in the solid environment using the laws of the classic Newton's mechanics. Snell's law defines the velocity of light beams in the solid environment as c / na , where na is refractive index of light in the solid environment. In the calculation of the shift of the interference fringes is the velocity of light beams in the interferometer arms stated incorrectly as c, which is the velocity of light in vacuum. In the Michelson-Morley's experiment there is no vacuum in the interferometer arms. I present here an argument, that is often presented, that the velocity of light in the air is just a few less than in vacuum and has no significant meaning for this experiment. The velocity of light beams in the air in the Earth's atmosphere is less by c - c / na = 79 km/s than the velocity of light in vacuum c. Michelson's inteferometer can measure he change of the velocity of light from the shift of the inteference fringes with the accuracy 1 m/s on the length of one meter. Therefore is unavoidable to state the precise value of the velocity of light in the arms of the Michelson's interferometer. Huygens' principle of propagation of the light in the solid environment defines, that every point to which the oscillation comes, becomes the source of the elementary oscillation. Huygens' principle avoids adding the velocity of light beams with the velocity of light, because the source of the light oscillation becomes each point of the solid environment which the oscillation reaches. Sound is propagated in the solid environment using the same principle. Pressure wave - sound is propagated in the solid environment progressively from point to point with the velocity given by the parameters of the solid environment. We can observe this phenomenon very well and graphically on the flying plane. The velocity of the sound coming from the flying plane is not added to the velocity of the plane, the sound is propagated from the flying plane in the air with the velocity given by the air parameters. The velocity of the movement of the sound source has no influence to the velocity of the sound. Only the sound frequency is changing, according to the Doppler's principle. Michelson-Morley's experiment has been measured in the air, therefore the light beams in both interferometer arms were moving in the air. The air in both interferometer arms is at rest with respect to the interferometer, therefore the velocity of the light beams with the respect to the interferometer is in both arms c / na . [...]

3) http://www.paradox-paradigm.com/

From Paradox to Paradigm
by: Johan Bakker

Foreword: Quantum mechanics and the Relativity Theory are incompatible. Somewhere something must be wrong. In 1727 Bradley observed the star y-Draconis and measured the stellar aberration. Science concluded unjustly from these measurements that the influential ether could not exist. Michelson and Morley proved without doubt, with their famous experiment in 1887, that absolute ether could not exist.

After both ethers were denied the Special Relativity Theory of Einstein was inevitable. The propagation of forces and light through vacuum became mysterious and almost unexplainable; time and space became relative.

In the 20th century quantum mechanics developed and gained momentum through the rapid development of computer science, mathematics and technological development. The mathematical solutions are staggering, though even the greatest scientists admit they do not comprehend the physical implications of quantum mechanics totally. In atomic and subatomic physics math has taken over. The flaw of quantum mechanics is the lack of physical understanding; it's become an empirical science.

When we consider that science unjustly rejected the hypothesis of the influential ether, in theory the possibility of this alternative still exists. Exploring the possibilities of the influential ether, it was "easy" to find mathematical and physical explanations for relativistic observations and the Lorentz factor. The scientific explanations the ether gives for unexplained and mysterious physical phenomena are vast.

Elementary and atomic particles like electron, positron, proton, neutron, deuteron, photon and neutrinos reveal their existence in simple non-relativistic mathematics. The physical background of quantum mechanics becomes clear. The dual character of particles and uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics coincides with the ether. Nuclear fusion is better understood. Even the cause for gravity emerges.

Theoretical physicists are not able to disprove the ether theory. They however, understandable, reject the possibility of ether because it differs too much with the present scientific perception; their opinion is pre-determined. [...]

Summary: The concrete indications science should look in depth at the possibilities of the ether theory are:

- In the 19th and 20th century science did not give enough attention to the possibility of the influential ether after this medium was denied prematurely. The influential ether describes the stellar aberration perfectly and therefore science should admit the ether theory is a possible alternative theory.

- The drag coefficient of Fresnel was confirmed by the experiment of Fizeau. This confirmation had no scientific meaning at all, because the drag coefficient was introduced ad hoc without a valid physical explanation. It was already certain a "drag factor" would be measured after Arago's observations. The perfect match of the experiment of Fizeau with the assumption of ether is a different case and should puzzle scientists.

- The ether theory, described in a simple basic manner in the previous chapters, give all the explanations you need to explain relativistic observations.

- The inert qualities of the ether gives an explanation for the observed, yet unexplained, synchrotron radiation.

Often one hears scientists declare the more simple a theory is the more valid it becomes. The ether theory, with only two forms of energy and related forces, is extremely simple and explains a lot. Why do scientists reject the ether theory without validated arguments? The comfort the ether theory explains the revelation of stable particles from ether should mean something to scientists and produce wondering. The, in a simple way, derived radius of the neutron combined with the basic equation of the energy of an oscillation eliminates the constant of Planck and derives a simple classical non relativistic presentation of the mysterious photon. What is the chance this can happen if it is pure coincidence? The strong magnetic force, the electrostatic force and the electromagnetic oscillation energy in the deuteron, the aligned proton and neutron, gives a basic explanation for the quantum mechanic properties of atomic nuclei and particles. The speculative, but yet simple and consistent, explanation of gravity emerging from atomic nuclei in matter opens the possibility the ether theory becomes "the theory of everything" when science gives it proper attention.

Measurements on magnetic currents with directed magnetic spin indicate that there might be a relation between mass and magnetic energy that exceeds the relation E=Mc² .

These are the arguments I found pro "ether", by assuming there might be ether after all. The described ether can explain many othernot mentioned phenomena. For example it is not hard to see that it is impossible for a proton to merge with an electron when conditions are not extreme dense. The properties of the mysterious neutrino become clear etc.

Also in favor for the ether theory are contradictions like:

- The Relativity Theory and quantum mechanics contradict each other. There must be something wrong somewhere!

- The American spacecraft's, the Pioneer 10 and 11 moves through space with a different direction than calculated with the Relativity Theory. The differences are small but undeniable and unexplained.

- In astronomy calculations bare large uncertainties. The estimations of the age of the universe are between 7 and 20 billion years. Factors of importance in astronomy are speed, distance, mass and time. All the astronomic measurements need relativistic corrections, which corrections will differ slightly when ether is assumed. Possible the accuracy of these calculations increases when astronomic data is corrected, according to ether, in a slightly different way?

- And "last but not least" there are the paradoxes the Relativity Theory and quantum mechanics imply. If there is no other explanation, the paradoxes have to be real, but without having to explain the paradoxes, the outcome of science is much clearer and therefore much more preferable.

When I started to write "From Paradox to Paradigm" I just knew in what direction I had to look. I was not satisfied with the perception of science of the world we do not experience. Science does not yet have all the answers. When you look what science achieved the last century you have to be impressed. The information technology and mathematics opened a world that was fast explored. Scientists eager to explore the unknown had found the code to decrypt the inexplicable. It had to be the truth what they discovered because the math matched the experience so well and suddenly what we experienced was no longer valid. Scientists use the validated argument that what we see is not necessary correct. But they misuse a similar argument when they say that math describes the data and therefore must be true. They forget that math is only a tool to describe the events observed and therefore only describes the mathematical solution of that part of reality. Quantum mechanics describe the experienced atomic and subatomic world very well. The achievement of science in this area is enormous. One has to be impressed, but science is also the achievement of men and therefore there is a change it overestimates itself: science itself can become arrogant. Science should be aware of its limitations. Quantum mechanics describe the behavior of (sub) atomic physics very well, this however does not mean that quantum mechanics are the answer to the whole truth. It is not, nothing is. It describes only a part, the observed in a mathematical way, and can therefore not be absolute. Quantum mechanics are even more limited in its revelations when derived relations are extrapolated. The value of extrapolated mathematical solutions is seriously limited by the fact that one does not know what the math describes exactly. It is a mathematical solution for a limited outcome of part of the process. Quantum mechanics describe the mathematical relation between observed data. These mathematical solutions do not explain the physical process that takes place. Quantum mechanics has no validation to pretend to describe the physical processes completely.

It would be arrogant to state that the ether is a better way to understand physics, but it is not when you state that it might be. As long as science denies the possibilities of the ether without valid arguments science is arrogant. In theoretical physics there are many contradictions that cannot be resolved, and therefore set aside. The possibilities of the ether theory to combine the uncertainty principle and duality of quantum mechanics and the deterministic aspects of classical physics are vast.

The main reason to write "From Paradox to Paradigm" is not be "right" or "wrong". If science took a path that is not completely correct, the perception quantum mechanics provides may not be totally valid. The consequence will be that we are not able to foresee that some interpretations are not entirely correct. We cannot adjust, because the only hold we have is the math and math only describes the direct relation of the data in a mathematical way. The ether described in this book gives strong indications that nuclear fusion will not be achieved, in an economic profitable way, by means of thermal nuclear fusion. The approach according to the ether should be totally different.

When atomic nucleus are captured and guided by strong magnetic fields the uncertainty principle can be contained and Controlled Cold Nuclear Fusion (CCNF) becomes theoretically possible. No one denies the necessity of abundant and clean nuclear fusion energy for our modern society. The high costs, pollution, global warming and limited reserves of natural energy resources will become disastrous in due time. And yet science denies society to explore this possibility by not taking the ether seriously.

[The book is accessible and can be printed, free of charge, at the web site above]
 

4) http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jlnaudin/html/elecmtr.htm

Electrogravitics - Experiment With A Motor
By: Patrick Cornille
 

5) http://www.einsteinontrial.com/

Einstein on Trial, Or Metaphysical Principles of Natural Philosophy - A collection of essays written over a period of a quarter of a century
by: Jorge Céspedes-Curé.

In 1905, Einstein set the scientific community on an innovative and, at the time, controversial course abandoning the Newtonian concept of space and time and upholding the Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics. Was this a leap forward or has the 20th century followed a misleading course? In a thoroughly readable and exhaustively philosophical analysis, backed by rigorous mathematical arguments, Jorge C. Curé places Einstein's conceptions on historic scrutiny. By unifying the Newtonian and classical relativistic conceptions of nature, he establishes a New Physics. A fitting revolution for the new millennium.
In Chapter 1, the author examines the philosophical knowledge Einstein had about the ontological and epistemological foundations of physics. He finds, in this respect, that Einstein was one of the few creators of 20th century physics who knew precisely what he was doing in the philosophical foundations of physics. In Chapter 2, Curé deduces a generalized Hamilton-Jacobi equation (HJ) from Newton's axiom of motion. This generalized HJ equation contains an extra term, which Curé calls the "quantum collective potential" (QCP). Curé goes on to show the ontological origin of the QCP based on a philosophical consideration when applying Newton's axiom of motion. He then shows that Schrödinger's equation is a particular case of the generalized HJ equation. In this chapter, Einstein is found not guilty, at all, in accusing quantum mechanics for being an incomplete theory. In Chapter 3, a vast collection of Electrokinetics (EK) and Electrodynamics (ED), which were scattered in the history of physics of the 19th and 20th centuries, are examined. They are classified and also translated to a modern vector notation. In Chapter 4, Newton's three principles are extended from three to five. Curé accepts Einstein's challenge to deduce "formally and logically" a Newtonian Gravitodynamics and Electrodynamics. Then he shows theoretically and experimentally the existence of a new ED field proportional to the square of the electric current. He also presents the revival of Eddington's model of the neutron as a miniature hydrogen atom. In Chapter 5, Curé re-examines the cosmic ether concept, discovering how Einstein himself resuscitated the concept in 1920. The author explains the light deflection of remote stars by the solar energy field, using the classical phenomenon of refraction. Curé's calculations show a much better agreement with Merat's empirical law of solar light deflection, than Einstein's calculations. In Chapter 6, Curé demonstrates that Newton provided, in his Principia of 1687, an original explanation about the perihelic rotation of planet Mercury. Curé defends General Relativity Theory (GRT), in the event that the sun is oblate. Curé uses the measured starlight deflection by the energy field of the sun to determine the stellar density of energy. At the end of this chapter, the author speculates on an alternative explanation of the starlight redshift. This work has profound implications on the Big Bang theory and modern cosmology. In the last Chapter 7, Curé begins with the analyses of four essays written by Einstein, between 1930 and 1948, about "Science and Religion." The author points out that Einstein, through the four essays, foresaw the advent of a future scientific theology. Einstein believed that through a "cosmic religious experience" man could acquire transrational knowledge by a transcendental reconnection with the Supreme Intelligence. In the rest of this chapter, Curé pursues, to its finality, the consequences of these initial theological intuitions of Einstein. In this way, Curé establishes the foundations of "Cosmotheism" or Scientific Theology.

6) http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look
by: James DeMeo

The history of science records the 1887 ether-drift experiment of Albert Michelson and Edward Morley as a pivotal turning point, where the energetic ether of space was discarded by mainstream physics. Thereafter, the postulate of "empty space" was embraced, along with related concepts which demanded constancy in light-speed, such as Albert Einstein's relativity theory. The now famous Michelson-Morley experiment is widely cited, in nearly every physics textbook, for its claimed "null" or "negative" results. Less known, however, is the far more significant and detailed work of Dayton Miller.

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry. Other positive ether-detection experiments have been undertaken, such as the work of Sagnac (1913) and Michelson and Gale (1925), documenting the existence in light-speed variations (c+v > c-v), but these were not adequately constructed for detection of a larger cosmological ether-drift, of the Earth and Solar System moving through the background of space. Dayton Miller's work on ether-drift was so constructed, however, and yielded consistently positive results.

Miller's work, which ran from 1906 through the mid-1930s, most strongly supports the idea of an ether-drift, of the Earth moving through a cosmological medium, with calculations made of the actual direction and magnitude of drift. By 1933, Miller concluded that the Earth was drifting at a speed of 208 km/sec. towards an apex in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere, towards Dorado, the swordfish, right ascension 4 hrs 54 min., declination of -70° 33', in the middle of the Great Magellanic Cloud and 7° from the southern pole of the ecliptic. (Miller 1933, p.234) This is based upon a measured displacement of around 10 km/sec. at the interferometer, and assuming the Earth was pushing through a stationary, but Earth-entrained ether in that particular direction, which lowered the velocity of the ether from around 200 to 10 km/sec. at the Earth's surface. Today, however, Miller's work is hardly known or mentioned, as is the case with nearly all the experiments which produced positive results for an ether in space. Modern physics today points instead to the much earlier and less significant 1887 work of Michelson-Morley, as having "proved the ether did not exist". [...]

http://www.orgonelab.org/

7) http://www.norbertfeist.de/english.htm#Absatz4

Ether Theory or Relativity Theory?
by: Norbert Feist

The missing aberration of terrestrial sources, a new analysis of the Michelson Experiment and analogous acoustic experiments with the result of a new identical propagation equation for light and sound call the premises of relativity theory into question. They speak for the existence of a luminiferous ether as absolute frame of reference and propagation medium for electromagnetic waves.

8) http://rosarioclub.com/ciencia.htm

La Aventura del Razonamiento - Ciencia & Descubrimiento
by: Ricardo Gómez Kenny

La comunidad cientifica, si bien evoluciona, es cerrada, ciega y sorda. El inesperado descubrimiento, anunciado por un argentino hace ya varios años, hoy deja sin respuesta a los matemàticos. Entre las opiniones que han podido recibirse - todas con alguna excusa - se puede leer "entre lìneas" , algo asì como...".!Ah, yo no fuì! Dirìjase a fulano." Si el error puntualizado llama la atenciòn, (por lo simple y razonable), la causa de todo sorprende mucho màs aùn. Los equipos de cientìficos, oficialmente reconocidos y que dicen "estar a favor de la acciòn interdiciplinaria", nunca quisieron tomar en cuenta la opiniòn racional de los grupos llamados comunmente "proyectistas". En sìntesis: Segùn este investigador ... todos los dibujos que representan experiencias en los libros de fisica, (En el tema Relatividad), estan mal confeccionados. No responden a las reglas preestablecidas para objetos en movimiento. Obviamente, la crìtica no se refiere a errores propios del dibujante sino de aquèl que concibiò dicha forma de representaciòn.¿Tienen validez los razonamientos que le siguen? Podrìamos resumir toda esta situaciòn en esta frase: "Un arquitecto moviò la estanterìa. Los matemàticos, desconcertados, se reùsan a debatir". [...]

9) http://www.hasslberger.com/

Vortex - The Natural Movement - Considerations on Light, Matter, Gravity And Magnetism
by: Josef Hasslberger

Physics, the science which should be explaining to us how the universe came about and what it consists of, seems to have arrived at the end of a blind alley. Its descriptions of the origin and the workings of our universe get more and more complex, less and less agreed-upon and they are definitely not going to accompany us into the 21st century. We are at the beginning of the space-age. In order to survive in that new age, we need clear and unequivocal descriptions of physical phenomena. [...] The trouble is not where physicists commonly look. It seems to be more a question of philosophical or religious outlook. Our view of nature was conditioned first by the great philosophers of ancient Greece and then, for a long time, by the orthodox religions prevalent in current western civilization. Ironically, the physicist who denies the action of a creator, just by this very denial limits the scope of his investigations. He has become "inversely religious", which to an independent scientific investigation is no less limiting than the stand of the dogmatic religionist. So it might be that progress in our time has become dependent again on philosophy, on that science of thinking, of looking at basics and drawing conclusions that is unencumbered by the specialization so prevalent in the physical sciences. The following is a speculative description, in simple terms, of the basic workings of the universe. [...]

10) http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm
Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything?
by: A.G. Kelly
Abstract: The original test results were not published by Hafele & Keating, in their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were radically different from the actual test results which are here published for the first time. An analysis of the real data shows that no credence can be given to the conclusions of Hafele & Keating.
... A leader in Nature in 1972 [11] said that "the agreement between theory and experiment was most satisfactory". ... The Hafele 1971 report said "Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything" and "the difference between theory and measurement is disturbing" ...
 

11) http://personales.ya.com/carlosla/model/

EVE, a model of the aether
by: Carlos Laborde

Introduction: The main purpose of this work is to define a model of aether within a given description scheme. The description scheme used is considered a matter of free election. This election must only be judged "a posteriori" by its power to organize in an economic and simple way as much knowledge of the physical world as possible. The description scheme is the following classical one:

- The space/geometry chosen for the description is the Euclidean with three dimensions.

- The time concept chosen for the description is the Absolute Time.

Such Space and Time are well defined mathematical concepts that behave according to the postulates. This does not necessarily imply that, in the absence of known external forces, every material mechanism used in some local context as a clock and that every, so called, rigid bar should always behave classically (i.e. remain constant when compared with standards). It must be considered satisfactory enough if the experimental behaviour of such clocks and rigid rods can be described in a consistent way within the description scheme chosen, invoking perhaps some new phenomena. Clocks are used to measure time, not Time, and rigid rods are used to measure space, not Space, (in a similar way that gas pressures, electric currents, etc, are measured by the corresponding instruments). The Time and Space are theoretical bricks of the description that are not measured in the physical world but defined in the model world.

It is considered that the goal of adjusting the physical laws to a classic descriptive scheme should not be abandoned since it promises more advantages than the relativistic point of view which adjusts the description scheme to some crude experimental observations. First, when seeking a global description of the positions and movements of the celestial bodies, the use of General Relativity seems condemned to lead to circular arguments due to the fact that the metric used in the description is itself altered by the gravitation fields of the bodies that aim to be installed in that metric. Second, if succeeding instead to describe the Universe with a 3-D Euclidean metric together with an absolute Time, the models so constructed are easily understood by our minds (used to treat with these kinds of relations in our everyday life). In this case, intuition becomes a powerful tool to suggest new inferences.

The descriptive point of view defended in this work is the same adopted by the majority of physicists before the arrival of Relativity. It is not ignored that the theory of Relativity became a safety raft when the efforts made at the beginning of the 20th century failed to explain the new experimental facts within the classical description frame. This work may be considered just a call to make one more effort in the old line impelled by two new facts: First, our knowledge of physical phenomena is now greater (quantum mechanics, vacuum fluctuations, existence of a preferred reference frame associated with the dipolar anisotropy of cosmic microwave radiation...). Second, today's official description of Physics seems again unsatisfactory to an increasing number of physicists.

Abstract: A very simple aether is postulated. This aether is represented by an ensemble of moving point entities (aetherinos) that pervade all space. The aetherinos are not material particles. They have no intrinsic material properties (mass, charge, magnetic moment, spin...) but are responsible for the appearance of these properties in matter, which is postulated to be an ensemble of entities of another kind (Simple Particles). In principle this aether is fully described by its aetherino's velocity distribution (which can change in space and in time) and by an hypothesis about the effects of the collisions of the aetherinos with matter. (The aetherinos do not collide with themselves).

No attempt is made in this work to deduce the exact local distribution consistent with the experimental facts. With the help of a plausible example distribution and a very simplistic model of matter it is "shown" nevertheless that many fundamental laws of physics can be "explained" instead of just stated. [...]

Light is considered a space - time modulation in the aetherino's velocity distribution. The "spread out" space - time propagation of the disturbance resembles more the idea of light as a wave than that of light as a particle (photon). The corpuscular properties of light should then be ascribed only to its emission and absorption by matter and explained by its cooperative / destructive interaction with the wave-type disturbance. [...]
 

12) http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/larson.htm
A Derivation of Maxwell's Equations from a Simple Two-Component Solid-Mechanical Aether
by: Delbert J. Larson
Abstract: Maxwell's equations are derived from a postulated, mechanical, two-component aether.

[Two more papers by the same author at  http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/listafis.htm, point N. 20]
 

13) http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/Writings/Space/Physics.htm

Flowing Space
by: Henry H. Lindner

Abstract: A simple theory of Cosmic space and motion explains the experimental results, unifies our understanding of the effects of motion and of gravity, produces no paradoxes, and makes more predictions than Relativity.

Key words: absolute space, atomic clocks, black holes, entrainment, gravity, inertia, light, mass, motion, paradoxes, principle of equivalence, Relativity, space, time.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8041/

14) http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/mccausland/toc.html

Anomalies in the History of Relativity
by: Ian McCausland

Abstract: In November 1919 it was announced to the world that observations of a solar eclipse that occurred in May 1919 supported Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. That announcement was one of the most influential events of 20th-century science, since Einstein's instant rise to enormous fame arose directly from it. In spite of the confidence with which the announcement was made, however, it was later realized that the accuracy of the observations was insufficient to constitute a reliable confirmation of the phenomenon that was predicted. Furthermore, another of the formulas published in the general theory, for the variation in the perihelion of the planet Mercury, had already been derived by another scientist several years earlier using another method. In spite of the fact that the experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein's enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought. The resulting deification of Einstein has had some unfortunate effects: critics of his theory are often dismissed as cranks, and the search for better theories has been inhibited. It is suggested that the announcement of the eclipse observations in 1919 was not a triumph of science as it is often portrayed, but rather an obstacle to objective consideration of alternatives.
Abstract (first page of article) - Introduction - The General Theory of Relativity - The Eclipse Expeditions & their Observations - Announcement of the Eclipse Results - The Perihelion of Mercury - The Special Theory of Relativity - Discussion - Acknowledgement - References

15) http://www.aetherpress.com/

Aether and Gyrons
by: Frank Meno

Present physical theories are based on numerous postulates for such things as forces, momenta, energy, mass, charge, etc., which are not defined in terms of comprehensible concepts. For example, a force that causes attraction through empty space is clearly impossible to comprehend. Although one can obtain some useful results by manipulating mathematical expressions based on such postulates, this approach has neither yielded progress in philosophy, nor has it enabled further progress in practice. Common sense tells us that, to investigate something effectively, we should know what we are dealing with. As I describe in my book [Cats, Atoms, Gyrons, Aether, and the Universe], the ancient Greeks have delineated the basic questions, but they failed to develop the required mathematics, and have not performed the necessary experiments to verify their hypotheses before their civilization collapsed. Nevertheless, the Greek philosophers came to the correct conclusion that there exists a fundamental substance which must be atomistic. This means that the ultimate constituent parts of this substance must not be further divisible. Furthermore, since the observed physical reality is changing, these fundamental entities, which they called atomos, must be in perpetual motion. The issue that was not effectively resolved regards the shape and size of these 'atoms' (gyrons). [...]

Aether Gyron

Each gyron moves in a straight line while at the same time rotating around its center. These gyrons, colliding with each other, comprise the gas called aether. Gyrons are very small on our scale, their length probably corresponds to the Planck length, which is 1.6 x10^-35 m. In comparison, the diameter of a proton is 1.5 x10^-15 m. The gyrons are spread throughout the universe, and the majority of them are undergoing random collisions with each other. In this condition they are comprising what we call the vacuum. Thus, vacuum is not empty, it contains the random moving gyrons whose motion represents the potential energy. The average gyron speed corresponds to the speed of light, while some of them move slower, and some faster.

Like in material substances, if the equilibrium condition is disturbed, waves can propagate in the aether. The most commonly observed aether waves are called electromagnetic waves, to which belongs light. In these waves the gyrons move as a group in a non-random spiral pattern which is called a photon. The intensity of light depends on the number of photons moving together. If the spiral trajectories of the participating photons move in unison, then the light is termed coherent. Coherent light is generated in lasers, while incoherent light comes from the sun and common illumination.

As in material fluids, there can also exist vortices in the aether. In an aether vortex the gyrons move non-randomly in a closed circular pattern. The simplest aether vortex is called electron. Since there are possible only right-handed, and left-handed rotations, we have also only two kinds of electrical charge. The charge is conserved because the rotation in the vortex is conserved. However, if a right-handed, and a left-handed vortex meet, the rotation cancels, and charge disappears. This is termed annihilation of matter with anti-matter. The disturbance associated with such an event causes the generation of photons. The images below show the organized trajectories of gyrons manifested as photons, and electrons. [...]

16) http://mywebpages.comcast.net/deneb/muller.htm

An Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity Theory (Unipolar Induction)
by: Francisco J. Müller

Here is an experiment that invalidates Relativistic Electrodynamics. To facilitate understanding it will be presented in two parts, each one in turn subdivided into a rotational case and a translational one. [...]

17) http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/troutnbl.htm

A Successful Trouton-Noble experiment
by: Jean-Louis Naudin and Patrick Cornille

18) http://www.ece.drexel.edu/ECE/AR/Aether_Model.pdf

An Aether Model of the Universe
by: Allen Rothwarf

Abstract: An aether model based upon a degenerate Fermion fluid, composed primarily of electrons and positrons in a negative energy state relative to the null state or true vacuum, is proposed and its consequences are explored for physics and cosmology. The model provides both insight and quantitative results for a large number of phenomena for which conventional theory provides no answers or unsatisfactory answers. Among the concepts treated are: wave-particle duality, the nature of spin (a vortex in the aether), the derivation of HubbleÕs law; electric fields (polarization of the aether); Zitterbewegung (a bare particle orbiting within a vortex core); inflation in cosmology; the arrow of time; the Pauli exclusion principle (repulsion between parallel spin vortices); the nature of the photon (a region of rotating polarized aether propagating with a screw-like motion); neutrinos (a spin vortex with no particle in its core); redshifts; g-ray bursters; and a number of other topics. A key assumption is that the speed of light is the Fermi velocity of the degenerate electron-positron plasma that dominates the aether. As a consequence the speed of light decreases with time on the scale of the age of the universe.

Keywords: Aether, Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology, Relativity, red-shift, Hubble's law, speed of light, vortices, wave-particle duality.

1. Introduction

We live in a universe of interacting fluids. While oceans in which gases are dissolved, and an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere with water vapor and other trace gases are readily accepted, the third fluid, the aether, which penetrates everything is ridiculed as a relic of a bygone era in science. Yet, while rejecting an aether, the science establishment has no problems swallowing waves in vacuum, mysterious probability waves, ad hoc cosmological constants, vacuum fluctuations that can generate anything, and time and space expanding and shrinking. To the true believer, the fact that they work is the only justification for the major theories in physics; Maxwell's equations, the Schrodinger equation, and Relativity, and is used as evidence that we know everything, that Science is Dead, and humanity's brightest should move on to more challenging tasks. Some of us, however, are heretics. We would actually like to understand the physics, rather than just use it as a magic wand to create technology. In this pursuit of understanding, which is also ridiculed by the establishment as asking meaningless questions, we have found that the aether is not only a useful concept, but that it is a real substance with an origin that coincides with the birth of our universe and whose properties determine the speed of light, the other physical constants, and the missing insight lacking in present theories.

Before expounding upon the aether and how it explains so many phenomena in a simple way, let me point out that contrary to popular belief, science is not logically based. Instead, it, like all human activity is based upon chance and trial and error. [...]

http://www.ece.drexel.edu/ECE/AR/Rothwarf_home.html

19) http://get.ilja-schmelzer.net/

General Lorentz Ether Theory
By: Ilya Schmelzer

An old and seemingly discredited notion of ether has found its new incarnation in a "metric theory of gravity" by I. Schmelzer, who managed to find for his new ether a consistent and instructive interpretation in terms of condensed matter physics. (Prof.V.A. Petrov)

General Lorentz ether theory (GLET) is a metric theory of gravity with a predefined Newtonian framework with preferred coordinates Xi, T. It generalizes Lorentz-Poincare Ether Theory to Gravity. The ether has density, velocity and stress tensor, and fulfills the classical conservation laws [...]

20) http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf

Unification of Physics
By: Ken H. Seto

Abstract: In the final days of his life, Einstein tried in vain to unite gravity with the electromagnetic force. The reason for his failure was due to his incomplete understanding of the physical space. A new description of physical space along with a new understanding of matter was formulated. This new model of the current universe gives rise to a new theory of gravity and at the same time it unite gravity with the electromagnetic force naturally. Also this new model predicts the existence of a new fifth force - called the CRE force. In addition, the unification of all physics is within the scope of this model.

http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/

[The author is already known to Episteme's readers for his article "The Resurrection of the Light Conducting Medium for Modern Physics" which appeared in the issue N. 3, April 2001]

21) http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say
By: Tom Van Flandern

Abstract: Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than light speed. This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pressure forces to have a non-radial component causing orbits to decay (the "Poynting-Robertson effect"); but gravity has no counterpart force proportional to v/c to first order. General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. [...]