Electrical Engineer Overturns Einstein’s Theory After 97 Years

einsteinshow2.php

An excellent article written by Arend Lammertink: original article here

Last week the newspapers were filled with the discovery of “impossible” particles traveling faster than the speed of light. A month ago an “impossible” star was discovered and earlier the Pioneer space probes alsorefused to adhere to the lawThis way, the scientific establishment will slowly but surely be forced to return to reality, the reality of the existence of a real, physical ether with fluid-like properties. The inevitable result of that will be that Einstein’s relativity theory will go down in the history books as one of the biggest fallacies ever brought forth by science. In the future they will look back to relativity with equal disbelief as to the “Earth is flat” concept. The relativity theory not only goes against common sense, as Tesla already said in 1932, a fundamental thinking error has been made by Maxwell in his equations. This eventually lead to the erroneous relativity theory, as is proven in this article. It is therefore no exaggeration to state that the scientific establishment is going to have a religious experience.

 

source: Tesla’s Ambassadors

The scientific establishment has been completely beside the mark by worshiping Albert Einstein and forgetting about Nikola Tesla. This logically thinking realist already wiped the floor with the theory of relativity in 1932 and thus proved for the umpteenth time to be far ahead of his time:

“It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

Isn’t it just beautiful how Tesla makes perfectly clear that the Emperor of modern physics has no clothes with simple logic?

Think about it. Space is literally no thing, nothing. It is the emptiness, the void, wherein physical stuff exists, but space in and of itself is not part of anything physical. And the way we describe it is nothing more and nothing less than an abstract definition, a mere thought construct to track what is where at any given time. Just like a treasure map: twenty paces north, thirty steps west. And because space is not physical at all, it can have no physical properties. Saying that space becomes curved by large bodies is the same as saying that a street map becomes curved because the cities and villages that are printed on it are so heavy. So, when your theory demands your abstract (nonphysical) “space map” to be adjusted in order to straighten your theory out, then something is seriously wrong with your theory, no matter how many times you repeat it and preach it. Tesla said it like this:

The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.

The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.”

Whereof deed.

Incidentally, Tesla already managed to break the speed limit before 1931 with his system of wireless transmission of energy. The principle of this system is that it transmits longitudinal electric waves through the interior of the earth, which propagate at a speed of pi/2 times the speed of light. He came to the idea of transmitting waves through the interior of the earth after he observed stationary waves caused by lightning. His system based on that observation is not understood by many. Eric Dollard describes it correctly in his book “The Theory of Wireless Power”. Given that the propagation speed of longitudinal electric waves (which according to the current theory cannot propagate trough a vacuum) is about 1.6 times the speed of light, it would be a very interesting experiment to see whether or not moon bouncingcould be achieved practically with longitudinal electric waves. If Tesla is right, we would see an Earth-Moon-Earth round-trip time of in the order of 1.6 seconds, while normal EM waves would take more than 2.5 seconds.

Anyway, now the counter of “impossible anomalies” stands at three, one can safely say that the theory of relativity has been proven to be incorrect. Further investigation shows that the origin of the errors in the theory of relativity can be found in the Maxwell equations. These equations describe the phenomenon of electro-magnetism, or the electromagnetic field, mathematically. A fundamental mistake has been made in the formulation of these equations.

The mathematician James Clerk Maxwell formulated his equations based on the experiments by Michael Faraday. Hereby, he assumed that the electromagnetic fields were caused by charge carriers, matter. Today we know from the particle-wave duality principle and quantum mechanics that matter is nothing but some kind of localized electromagnetic wave. In other words, there’s a hole in the explanation of the mainstream science you can drive a truck through:

Either the fields cause the matter, or the matter causes the fields, but not both at the same time! Make up your mind, folks!

It may be clear by now that quantum mechanics is correct in this respect and that the Maxwell equations are therefore incorrect or at least incomplete. Both the electric and the magnetic field can exist on and by themselves and can also propagate trough space. When the Maxwell equations are corrected for this omission, as Prof. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl does in his paper “Faraday or Maxwell?”, we basically return to the good old ether model. The ultimate result of that is that Einstein’s relativity theory should be referred to the realm of fantasy.

Because Maxwell assumed that charge carriers were the causes of the fields, implicitly a certain reference frame is linked to the description of the fields. That leads to the Maxwell equations being not invariant to the so-called Galilean transform. This sounds complicated, but if you want to describe a ripple in a glass of water in a passing train, you have to take into account the speed difference between observer and train. Well, that’s all the Galilean transform does. So, in order to describe the waves propagating trough the ether “generally”, you have to basically use the same correction. And because the Galilean transform can be applied to all classical mechanics laws, we call these “invariant” for the Galilean transformation:

“Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity is a principle of relativity which states that the fundamental laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. Galileo Galilei first described this principle in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems using the example of a ship traveling at constant velocity, without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary.

Maxwell’s equations governing electromagnetism possess a different symmetry, Lorentz invariance, under which lengths and times are affected by a change in velocity, which is then described mathematically by a Lorentz transformation.

Albert Einstein’s central insight in formulating special relativity was that, for full consistency with electromagnetism, mechanics must also be revised such that Lorentz invariance replaces Galilean invariance. At the low relative velocities characteristic of everyday life, Lorentz invariance and Galilean invariance are nearly the same, but for relative velocities close to that of light they are very different.”

What happened is that it turned out that the Galilean transform is not working with the Maxwell equations. In other words, the Maxwell equations are not invariant to the Galilean transform. However, this is ultimately caused by the incorrect assumption that the fields are caused by matter. As Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill argued some time ago, science resorted to the so-called Lorentz transformation, mathematically correct but in fact nonsense in terms of having any physical relevance. And it is this Lorentz transformation which requires the speed of light to be constant, while we actually know this is not the case.

After all, within different materials, different media, the speed of light differs and is less than that in free space. And because materials consist of elementary particles, it is clear that the presence of (elementary) particles affects the speed of light. This is what causes light rays to break in the transition from air to glass. And since we also know from the particle-wave duality principle that all electromagnetic waves in the Universe are particles and we know that the Universe is filled with all kinds of electromagnetic waves, it is clear that throughout the Universe the speed of light is affected by the presence of all kinds of particles. The claim that the speed of light is constant in the Universe is therefore absolutely untenable.

Update (sept 30, 2011):

It turns out that it has actually been experimentally proven that the speed of light in deep space is not fixed, as reported by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.:

“Evidence has surfaced that the speed of light is not c in deep space, based on satellite data from Pioneer 10 and 11. Launched in 1972 and 1973 respectively, radio signals received from these satellites contain an “anomalous” Doppler shift. Renshaw showed that this can be explained by assuming classical Newtonian mechanics for the Doppler-shifted radio signal in a heliocentric frame of reference. Staunch relativists take note: Here is a clear case, for both satellites, whereclassical theory gives the correct answer, but relativistic corrections lead to the wrong results.Einstein’s relativity cannot explain this result, and indeed, it is the cause of the problem in the first place!”

“Wallace discovered that radar data for the planet Venus did not confirm the constancy of the speed of light. Alarmed and intrigued by these results, he noticed systematic variations in the data with diurnal and lunar-synodic components. He attempted to publish the results in Physical Review Letters, but he encountered considerable resistance. His analysis indicated a heretical “c + v” Galilean fit to the data, so as a result, he had no alternative but to publish elsewhere. To say that Wallace was less than tactful would be something of an understatement. He made heated claims that NASA had noticed the very same results and was using non-relativistic correction factors to calculate signal transit times.”

I just love coincidences like this. One day you prove theoretically that the speed of light cannot be fixed across the Universe and just two days later you find the experimental evidence just like that. And thearticle by Dr. Cantrell provides much more evidence that Einstein’s relativity theory really is untenable after all.

When we add just this “anomalous” Doppler shift (which is a completely different phenomenon than the slow down anomaly referred to above) and the “anomalous” radar data, the count already stands at five. And still counting, cause I haven’t even finished reading Dr. Cantrell’s article…

<end update>

Conclusion:

1. The concept of our description of “space” is an abstract concept, comparable to a street-map. Space itself is the emptiness, the void, in which physical (tangible) entities exist and thus space in and of itself cannot have physical properties. Therefore space cannot be curved, because it cannot have physical properties.

2. The field descriptions (Maxwell equations) are incorrect, because of the incorrect assumptionthat the fields are caused by particles. When this error is corrected, the normal Galilean transform applies, which does not demand a fixed speed of light.

3. The speed of light is not constant within the Universe, and therefore the Lorentz transform cannot be applied in the real physical Universe, even if it would have had any physical relevance.

And that means the bottom drops from underneath the whole relativity theory.

Q.E.D.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH9vAIdMqng
Update (Oct 20th 2011): Note that only one of these arguments has to be true on order for Einstein’s theory to be disproven. After all, the whole idea of the speed of light supposedly being fixed is because that is being demanded by the Lorentz transform. So, Tesla’s argument that space cannot be curved, because it cannot have physical properties is just an additional illustrative argument that shows how simple it really is to recognize that relativity cannot be correct. And the argument that the Maxwell equations are incorrect is the root cause that explains how and why physics went bazerk for over a hundred years.

Update (April 6th 2013): Actually, Einstein himself said that “space without aether is unthinkable”:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH9vAIdMqng

Subsequently, the work of Hans Jenny is very interesting. He published a number of breathtaking videos which show what you can do with sound waves, e.g. in a bowl of water (parts 12 en 3). He shows that many kinds of geometric shapes can be formed using standing sound waves in the fluid, whereby matter flows together naturally to certain areas and stays away from other areas. And that’s also what happens in the ether. So, gravity is simply an electrostatic phenomenon caused by longitudinal standing waves in the ether, which determines the geometry of the solar system, our galaxy, and so on. Everything is connected to everything through these standing waves.

Well, and if you’re that far off with your fundamental theory, it should surprise no one that you get strange results every now and then. The reported Pioneer anomaly is simply due to the distribution of ether pressure, the same kind of ether pressure that keeps our planet in orbit.

And for those who are still looking for the ether wind that they could never find: near the surface of the earth this exercises a force on matter, such that matter accelerates with about 9.81 m/s2 towards the earth. This still unexplained force can therefore be nullified pretty easily using very high electrical voltages, as Thomas Townsend Brown proved in the sixties with his “mysterious” anti-gravity experiments. (Recently replicated on a small scale by Jean-Louis Naudin).

So, IMHO, it’s high time to restore the old ether theory and return to “reality” instead of “relativity”. And to be honest, that seams relatively easy to me.

Arend Lammertink, MSc, September 26, 2011.


In case you feel that I might have little admiration for Einstein, this my favorite quote of this great scientist:

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

With this one, I totally agree:

“Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the “old one.” I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.”

And last but not least: this one:

“A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, His thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest … a kind of optical delusion of His consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restrict us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free Ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

WOW!

My article and statements in “the ruins of 106 years Einstein relativity” is directed against the theory of relativity as such, and certainly also against the way this theory is preached almost as absolute truth by mainstream science. They manage to ignore and/or ridicule well-founded criticism such as by Thornhill and Meyl. So, if one wants to take a stand against this, one has unfortunately little choice but to be blunt. It’s a shame that this is needed today, but well, so be it. It is high time that the fundamental mistakes that were made are straightened out, because with the “pretend and extend” politics of mainstream science, we will get nowhere.

And for the fans one more quote from Tesla:

“According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictoryEvery action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.”

This article may be freely copied, distributed and/or published, whether or not partially, translated, etc. A reference to the source www.tuks.nl and the name of the author is appreciated. If desired, here (small version) you can find a photograph of the author, which can also be used freely.

Arend can be contacted by email at lamare at the gmail dot com domain.

The ideas and theories that lead to this article have been “peer reviewed” at Energetic Forum, where this article can also be discussed.

A version of this article in Dutch can be found here


Further links and references:

A Dissident View of Relativity Theory by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.

“In this issue we highlight some of the experimental facts that do not fit with relativity theory. We discuss some of its logical inconsistencies and offer alternatives for your consideration. We also look at the controversies associated with some of Einstein’s ideas and how they first originated. As always, our goal is to bring you viable, plausible alternatives to the cherished and protected dogma of mainstream physics—areas where theory does not agree with experimental facts.”

This thread on Energetic Forum has lots of further information. For example, Paul Stowe:

“Many of apparent inconsistencies that exist in our current understanding of physics have results from a basic lack of understanding of what are called fields. These fields, electric, magnetic, gravitational…etc, have been the nemesis of physicists since the birth of modern science, and continues unresolved by quantum mechanics. A classical example of this is the problem of an electron interacting with it’s own field. This case results in the equations of quantum mechanics diverging to infinity. To overcome this problem, Bethe(1) introduced the process of ignoring the higher order terms that result from taking these equations to their limit of zero distance, in what is now a common practice called renormalization.

These field problems result in class of entities called virtualexisting only to balance and explain interactions. These entities can (and do) violate accepted physical laws. This is deemed acceptable since they are assumed to exist temporarily at time intervals shorter than the Heisenberg’s uncertainty limit. It has been known for some time that such virtual entities necessitate the existence of energy in this virtual realm (Field), giving rise to the concept of quantum zero point energy.

As a result of this presentation I will propose the elimination of both the need for renormalization and any such virtual fields. This will be accomplished by replacing the virtual field with a real physical media within which we define elemental particles (which more precisely should be called structures) and the resultant forces which act between them.”

Einstein’s Ether:

The vortex is central to wave mechanics and when the academicians threw out the ether concept they discarded the investigation into vortices, which are the source of all wave motions in our Universe. By eliminating the vortices from the academic theory, it ensured our handlers, that those who dedicate themselves to the system of mind control in place would never question the extreme motive force of the vortex and apply it to solving our energy needs and freeing us from the polluting fuels sold at extreme cost by energy barons, then wasted by explosion, heat and pollution, extracting a fraction of its value in the form of usable motive energy.”

Faster than the Speed of Light:

“If you follow the news concerning new developments in science, you might have heard that over the course of the last decade our scientists have ‘broken the light barrier’. Apparently experiments have been conducted that produce results that are ‘faster than the speed of light.’ These experiments remain controversial, but they have been duplicated in different ways, producing similar results, and this then leads a person to wonder what might be going on here.”

The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong

“According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists’ astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts.”

Q: Why is Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory so bizarre? Is our universe really that strange?

“A: Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory is all a mistake. Not only can clear errors be found in all supporting experiments and thought experiments, but even Einstein’s own mathematical support for his theory has clear fatal errors. One of the flaws is so striking that two key lines were omitted from Einstein’s published Special Relativity derivation found in his own book, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, published in 1961. A closer look at this derivation shows a large leap of logic that cannot be properly followed unless several missing lines are filled in. There is only one mathematically viable way to fill in these missing lines, which is shown below in simplified form:

Line 1: x = a + b — note: speed-of-light term, c, has dropped out entirely by this point

Line 2: x = a + b * (c2/ c2) — the undefined symbol, c, is artificially re-introduced

Now, let the symbol y stand for the expression (b * c2)

Line 3: x = a + y / c2 — the symbol, c, is kept from canceling by hiding it within y in the numerator

The two missing lines, now added above as lines 1 & 2, show that the speed-of-light term drops out of the derivation entirely and should never have appeared in the final equations. The above improper mathematical operations are the only way to add it back in, yet do not actually add the speed of light back at all, but only the meaningless letter C from the alphabet. Any letter from A to Z could have been chosen, showing how meaningless and arbitrary it was to choose the letter C, which was used to represent the speed of light earlier in the derivation before it dropped out completely.”

An Electrical Engineer Explores the Hoax of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity

“An electrical engineer has explored the Hoax of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity in a new book. Einstein and the Emperor’s-New-Clothes Syndrome: The Exposé of a Charlatan, by Robert L. Henderson, suggests that Einstein’s relativity theories are incorrect.

Most people do not understand Einstein’s theories of relativity, says author Robert L. Henderson in his thought-provoking new book. Henderson suggests that the reason for this is because the theories simply are not true.

Rational and forthright, Henderson argues that Einstein’s thinking was distorted and that his science and mathematics were severely flawed. While Einstein proposed that time could affect both light and gravity, Henderson instead argues for the Universal Energy Field (UEF) as the medium which transmits light waves and generates gravitational forces.”

Abstract here:

“In the first place, by the very definition of “space,” it is not possible for space — which consists of nothingness and is all-pervading—to be curved, either through a physical dimension, or through the non-physical dimension of time as assumed by GR: to speak of space as being curved is an oxymoron. In addition, since space consists of nothingness, it is not possible for it to exert forces of any kind.”

Henderson commented here:

“Although both QM and GR are universally accepted by the academic community, it is also acknowledged by the academic community that since the two sciences are totally incompatible, one of them must be wrong: yet no one in the academic community has been willing to take a stand as to which one is in error. However, as explained in “The-Emperor’s-New-Clothes book, it should be obvious that it is GR that is at fault and should be abandoned.”

The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light by Dr. Paul Marmet, Professor of Physics (Deceased):

“One must conclude that the GPS and all the related experiments give a striking proof that the velocity of light is not constant with respect to an observer, contrary to Einstein’s hypotheses. The measured velocity of light is c-v in one direction and c+v in the other. The velocity of light is equal to c with respect to an absolute frame in space. This is now an experimental fact. Finally, we have seen how it is apparently constant in all frames using proper values and a correct clock synchronization.

We can consider the velocity of light with respect to a group of stars around the Sun. However, there is nothing that says that that star cluster is at an absolute rest. It probably moves around our galaxy which itself moves around the local cluster of galaxies. From what we have seen here, we see that the star cluster mentioned above is just another moving frame, in which again, we have an “apparent” velocity of light equal to c in all directions, because we do not know yet, how to get an absolute synchronization of clocks from the absolute frame.”

Theory of Relativity was Born Due to Mistakes in Deriving Equations by Mamoru Hidaka, Chofu city Tokyo Japan:

“The process of constructing new theoretical formulae involves expressing postulates in terms of functions followed by development of the resulting equations. Of the vast body of theoretical work reported to date, only the development of the theory of relativity omitted steps in this procedure because the basic mathematics defining the principle of the constant velocity of light were mental arithmetic, and therefore not recorded. The theory of relativity is a rare example of a theory that came to fruition as a result of mistakes in the mathematical process but which has had far reaching consequences in the field of physics and the modern history of mankind.”

Tesla versus Einstein by Dr. Harold Aspden:

“As we celebrate Einstein in the centenary year since he introduced his Theory of Relativity there are those of us who see little to celebrate because we believe that Einstein blocked the way forward in our quest to tap energy from the aether. The aether is the energy source accounting for the creation of our universe but Einstein’s theory caused scientists to replace the aether by abstract mathematical notions. Hence there has been no acceptance of the aether as a possible new energy source, needed as our oil reserves are eroded. It is timely, therefore, to review the claim made by Nikola Tesla that he had devised and constructed an automobile that was powered on aether energy.”

The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light by Paul Marmet, Ph. D.:

“When the velocity of light is measured with the Global Positioning System (GPS), we find that it is (c-v) or (c+v), in which v is the rotation velocity of the Earth where the cities are located. We know that the Lorentz transformations and special relativity are unable to provide a realistic physical explanation of the behavior of matter and light. We show here that all these phenomena can be explained using Newton’s physics and mass-energy conservation, without space contraction or time dilation. We have seen previously that the principle of mass-energy conservation requires that clocks run at a slower rate in a moving frame, and physical bodies become longer because of the increase of the Bohr radius. These results allow us to answer the question: With respect to what, does light travel? For example, when we move away at velocity v, from a source emitting light at velocity c, the relative motion of the radiation is observed from the Doppler shift. How can we explain logically that these photons “appear” to reach us at velocity c and not (c-v)? The conventional explanation relies on special relativity, but it implies an esoteric space-time distortion, which is not compatible with logic. This paper gives a physical explanation how the velocity of light is really (c-v) with respect to the observer, even if the observer’s tools always measure a velocity represented by the number c. We explain how this problem is crucial in the Global Positioning System (GPS) and in clocks synchronization. The Lorentz’ transformations become quite useless. This apparent constant velocity of light with respect to a moving frame is the most fascinating illusion in science.”

Also see his other papers.

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community:

“The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.”

On the Generalized Maxwell Equations and Their Prediction of Electroscalar Wave by Arbab I. Arbab and Zeinab A. Satti:

“In this paper we write the Maxwell equations in quaternion including the Lorentz force and the continuity equation. We have found that the Maxwell equations are derived from just one quaternion equation. The solution of these equations shows that the charge and current densities are wavestraveling with speed of light. Generalizing the continuity equation resulted in obtaining three equations defining the charge and current densities. Besides, there exists a set of transformation that leave generalized continuity equation invariant. When these transformations are applied to the energy conservation law an electroscalar wave propagating with speed of light is obtained. Thus, the quaternionic Maxwell equation and continuity equation predict that there exist a scalar wavepropagating with speed of light. This wave could possibly arise due to vacuum fluctuation. Such a wave is not included in the Maxwell equations. Therefore, the existence of the electroscalar is a very essential integral part of Maxwell theory. Expressions of Lorentz force and the power delivered to a charge particle are obtained from the quaternion Lorentz force.”

Dayton Miller’s Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look by James DeMeo, Ph.D.:

“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”.”

The Aether FAQ

Q-002: Does the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) disprove aether theories?

The answer is no. What the famous Michelson-Morley Experiment showed us is that the assumption that one could use the aether frame as a preferred frame of reference in which to measure such things as motion, is invalid. This told us more about the physical qualities of matter and electromagnetic energy, than about proof of the presence, of lack thereof, of an aether. It clearly demonstrated our conceived notions about matter (at that time) and its interactions with the aether were incorrect. There have been several distinct experiments designed specifically to define the interaction of matter/EM energy with the underlying medium. Some of the more famous are:

1: Michelson-Morely
A light beam is split into two perpendicular component paths, A and B which are of equal length. Path A is in the direction of earth’s motion and path B is at right angles to A. It was expected that, due to earth’s motion, the time to travel path A would be less than the time to travel path B, and therefore, upon reconverging the light beams the frequencies would be out of phase and would of necessity exhibit an interference pattern. No such interference was noted.

2: Kennedy-Thordike
A variation on the MMX, a light beam is split into two perpendicular component paths, A and B and paths A and B are of different lengths. Again, no such interference was noted, ruling out length contraction alone as being an explanation for the null results of the MMX.

3: Trouton-Noble
A parallel plate capacitor was suspended from a single line, thus allowing the plate to rotate freely around the line. It was expected that the translational motion of the earth would result in a magnetic torque force on the charges resulting in the alignment of the plates parallel to the motion of the earth. No such torque force was discerned.

4: Sagnac
A light beam is split into to perpendicular component paths, A and B. Path A travels through a glass disk from south to east at 45?, from east to north at 135?, from north to west at 225?, and from west back to south at 315?. Path B travels through the disk in exactly the opposite fashion. The beams are then reconverged and an interference pattern is determined. The glass disk is then rotated on its axis. It is expected that a fringe proportional to both the angular rotation and the area enclosed by the light path would result. The results of this experiment were in complete accord with expectations and completely consistent with an aether medium.

5: Michelson-Gale
A variation of Sagnac’s experiment described above, except that this variant used the earth’s rotational motion. The results measured were again consistent with expectations and an aether medium.

6: Thirring-Lenze
A balanced, freely rotating ring made from a highly dense material (such as tungsten) is centered around a compass type, inertial needle. The ring does not touch the needle. With this system in a vacuum, the ring is rotated at a high rate of speed. Since the ring is balanced and in no way touches the needle there should be no unbalanced forces acting on or through the needle and the needle would not be expected to move. However, if a physical medium pervades space, the rotation of the ring will result in a vortex forming at the center of rotation. Since the needle exists in this vortex the needle will experience rotational drag and assume the rotational speed of the ring. This was a result predicted by general relativity (dragging the inertial frame) and identified 1915.

7: Fizeau
A light beam is passed perpendicularly through a flowing water stream. Differences in the index of refraction was measured relative to stationary water. The resulting measurements were fully consistent with both relativity and the aether concept.

Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice.

This is my earlier work. Recently read it back. Most of it still makes a lot of sense, even though some of the material is a bit outdated. An interesting read nonetheless….

Update June 30, 2012:

An interesting discussion in Dutch about physics with the guys from Skepsis. Some Dutch speaking Professors are convinced they taught me a lesson in physics. Really interesting discussion. Perhaps you can use Google translate… I made a copy of the discussion for that, but I don’t know if it works….

About Arend Lammertink:

Arend Lammertink holds a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Twente. After graduating in 1996, he worked as a software engineer. He worked a.o. on OpendTect, an open source seismic interpretation system. Arend lives in GoorThe Netherlands, together with his wife and three children. He grew up in Markelo, where his family owned a farm as well as a restaurant, now run by his brother who is also the chef-cook. The favorite tractor of the Lammertink family is the Massey Ferguson 35.


Should you feel like supporting my work, you can donate to me via PayPal to lamare (at) gmail(dot) com. This is also the email adress that can be used for contacting me.

Advertisements
  • KMoriisato

    Can you make this into a PDF, so it can be archived on my machine?

  • c. kurtz

    Articles posted on the Ericdollard.Com website need to be vetted by Eric to ensure they adhere to the basic tenets of what he is trying to teach us. While initially on the surface this article appears to do so, in actuality it does not.

    If you are going to promote Tesla’s teachings then you can not mix his beliefs with those of Einstein or that of, as Eric calls it, Quantum Mysticism.

    The first sign that something is off with paper shows up with this:

    “Today we know from the particle-wave duality principle and quantum mechanics that matter is nothing but some kind of localized electromagnetic wave.”

    And you thought this guy was supposed to be promoting Tesla… If so why is he instead promoting quantum mysticism, or as I refer to it: voodoo meta-physics? The reason he is regurgitating this propaganda is because he either doesn’t know his subject matter, i.e. Tesla based science, or he is just a dupe, a shill, another Beardonian fraud whose agenda is to just mix things up and give people headaches. Any one who knows anything about Tesla, beyond the fact that Tesla coils sure make big sparks, is aware that Tesla believed matter is formed by vortices in a compressible aether, not by voodoo non-material ghostly waves of nothing in the nothingness of that dupe Einstein’s empty head.

    If this isn’t bad enough, while the paper starts off execrating Einstein’s theories it then turns right around and uses those very same imbecilic concepts to attempt to prove its contentions:

    “This sounds complicated, but if you want to describe a ripple in a glass of water in a passing train, you have to take into account the speed difference between observer and train.”

    The universe doesn’t care about observers – ‘observe and be damned’ is a good motto when referring to Einstein’s metaphysical garbage. I quit reading right there because I don’t need to waste my time with drivel such as this.

    Posting nonsense such as this demeans the site and Eric, while promoting confusion among those who are attempting to learn what science really is. If Eric doesn’t have time to certify what is posted here then get a vetting committee made up of people who have actually read what Tesla wrote and understand it to some degree so this doesn’t happen again. I hope you remove this article, I really do.

  • Tech Zombie

    Kurtz,

    This is an open forum for debate and these comments will be read by all.

    If the professor wants to read the article and comment then clearly it will have overruling power, but we are not going to allow bottlenecks to hold us back. It was made clear that this article was not written by the Professor.

    This is a movement that is about alot more than just the Professor or Tesla it is about the revival of science. Many voices play a part.

  • c. kurtz

    Eric has stated he will not discuss Einsteinian nor quantum nonsense because it has nothing to do with what he regards as real science, and to do so retards efforts to re-establish the science of Tesla and others. You seem to believe that because you helped raise some funds for Eric that you know better and you will dictate what will be posted. The problem with that of course is that you obviously are not well versed in aether science nor with Tesla’s work and writings. In short, besides not having the right, you do not have the qualifications to make such decisions, your only legitimate role is to liaison with Eric to help run this site according to his wishes.

    If we check who owns this site, which is called ericdollard.com not TechZombie.com, I take it we won’t find Eric’s name anywhere, which would mean you are co-opting his name and reputation. Apparently you think you are in charge and will make any and all decisions regardless of what anyone, including Eric, thinks. If you can’t act as a liaison with Eric and accede to his wishes you need to take a large dose of emetic and clear your head or just clear out. I won’t be posting here anymore as I still know how to write letters if I have something to say to Eric because I sure as hell have nothing further to say to you.

  • gypsy

    Sure, possibly science as a whole has moved too far into relativity and away from absolutism, yet this is the normal process of change. We swing from one pole to the other, back and forth, always missing the middle. Relativity was the great step forward from an absolutist Newtonian world. It was a paradigm shift and everybody got very excited so naturally the shift in focus was over-emphasised. Yet to say that all things aren’t relative to one another is truly stupid and indicated only a lack of perspective in the author. After all, our own perspective is all we truly have and it is what shows us our own relativity. One can only come to such conclusions as i read above if one lacks an understanding of perspective. The space between objects cannot be separated from those objects, just as the space cannot be separated from those objects it is between. In my imagination the space between galaxies is still between those galaxies and the gravitational effect from those galaxies still affects the space between. After all the pilot of a plane perceives he is travelling in a straight line, yet the observer on the ground sees a curved contrail following the plane. It is all a matter of relative perspective. Space is curved not by its own properties/attributes but because of the forces being exerted from the matter nearby. I dare someone to travel in a liner line through space.

  • Tech Zombie

    Either the experiment works, or it doesn’t. nothing relative about it. That’s science.

    If you’re into existentialist philosophy then this isn’t the place. We are interested in science here, which is the absolute 100% truth.

    Relativity is 100% WRONG. Moving to the middle will get us where? to only 50% WRONG.. so the liars can more easily corrupt things and we eventually end up again at 100% WRONG with a new bs theory. NO

    ENOUGH. we want 0% wrong, 100% TRUTH. and we will get it by exposing this massive hoax. Nice try tho.

    We’re not “nice guys” here, they finish last, we want 1st place and to lap you at least a few times, then laugh at you when you finally make it to the finish line. Welcome to the new rules of the game. ROAR

  • morris86

    Mmh Tesla has already logically dis-proven relativity and the evidence is still building up today but for some reason everyone ignores it ? gravity probes giving null results ,satellites mis-behaving,matter is really standing waves how much logic do you need before the we see the truth. We are taught that any proof no matter what can be disproven with one counter example . Why do people still cling to their belief
    in bad science ? many are they.. politics ,financial etc
    rather than go on this video from suedeslounge on utube provides all the counter examples you may ever need. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y09KQxcSjc

  • FYI, this is what Eric mailed on Tue Oct 4, 2011 1:38 pm to the n6kph Yahoo group:

    -:-
    Arend Lammertink wrote:

    >
    >
    > Hi all,
    >
    > P.S. You may like my article about why Einstein’s relativity theory is
    > rubbish:
    > [link]
    >
    I like the concept of the title “Electrical Engineer Overturns
    Einstein’s Theory After 97 Years” (I think I got it right) It really
    made my day. My censored 4 1/2 hour long Tesla Society lecture was
    subtitled, “The Theory of Anti-Relativity” It must have really p*ss*d
    them off. Today in the Los Angeles Times was a full editorial
    expressing the irresponsibility of CERN group for releasing this
    information on their experiment without “Asking for permission.” What
    puke! But it sure is fun screwing around with them on my part, but boy
    do I pay for it. As far as the size of the Planck, it’s physical size
    has to match the physical size of its constituent parts lines of
    magnetism and dielectricity and therefore must approach molecular
    dimensions. In other words, they’re tiny. Mechanical forces acting upon
    conductors can be found in good electrical engineering books, mine are
    gone. Maybe with your educational background, Masters Degree, you can
    provide guidance to the answers of these very fundamental questions.

    Thank you for your involvement,
    Eric
    -:-

    I removed the actual link to the article, because it appears that when you use links in comments, these are moderated. But the link is somewhere above.

    — Arend —

  • Tech Zombie

    Kurtz,

    This article was sent to Eric by the writer almost 2 years ago.
    Here is Eric’s response to the writer. Your tone suggests an ulterior motive

    I like the concept of the title “Electrical Engineer Overturns
    Einstein’s Theory After 97 Years” (I think I got it right) It really
    made my day. My censored 4 1/2 hour long Tesla Society lecture was
    subtitled, “The Theory of Anti-Relativity” It must have really p*ss*d
    them off. Today in the Los Angeles Times was a full editorial
    expressing the irresponsibility of CERN group for releasing this
    information on their experiment without “Asking for permission.” What
    puke! But it sure is fun screwing around with them on my part, but boy
    do I pay for it. As far as the size of the Planck, it’s physical size
    has to match the physical size of its constituent parts lines of
    magnetism and dielectricity and therefore must approach molecular
    dimensions. In other words, they’re tiny. Mechanical forces acting upon
    conductors can be found in good electrical engineering books, mine are
    gone. Maybe with your educational background, Masters Degree, you can
    provide guidance to the answers of these very fundamental questions.

    Thank you for your involvement,
    Eric

  • Tech Zombie

    Wow..

    sounds like I stole your girlfriend or something…
    Who are you and where did this reaction come from ?

    -To others reading this.. “this is the stuff we have to deal with here. People just losing their marbles over nothing”.

    As for the article. Eric read it over two years ago and loved it. Here was his response back to the author. You really need to take a chill pill. Who are you?

    “I like the concept of the title “Electrical Engineer Overturns
    Einstein’s Theory After 97 Years” (I think I got it right) It really
    made my day. My censored 4 1/2 hour long Tesla Society lecture was
    subtitled, “The Theory of Anti-Relativity” It must have really p*ss*d
    them off. Today in the Los Angeles Times was a full editorial
    expressing the irresponsibility of CERN group for releasing this
    information on their experiment without “Asking for permission.” What
    puke! But it sure is fun screwing around with them on my part, but boy
    do I pay for it. As far as the size of the Planck, it’s physical size
    has to match the physical size of its constituent parts lines of
    magnetism and dielectricity and therefore must approach molecular
    dimensions. In other words, they’re tiny. Mechanical forces acting upon
    conductors can be found in good electrical engineering books, mine are
    gone. Maybe with your educational background, Masters Degree, you can
    provide guidance to the answers of these very fundamental questions.

    Thank you for your involvement,
    Eric”

  • Rodney

    I would thoroughly enjoy a very public debate with this author. A little knowledge can certainly lead one down the wrong path. This is so “full of holes”.

  • Boris

    GO TESLAAAA and AETHER force

    I believe this article 99.9% because the guys that worked in black covert project in the UFO community , Roswell, area 51 etc have stated MULTIPLE TIMES exactly the same:

    THERE’S A MISTAKE IN MAXWELL EQUATIONS..

    and that’s how they achieved anti-gravity, instant travelling to Mars etc..

    It really is like Tesla said: The present belongs to them, but the FUTURE BELONGS TO ME.

    The reason for purposeful deception is just as with everything else: no new technology but PETRO-DOLLAR instead..

    Revolution is on the way and people are winning..
    Peace and love to everybody..

  • Boris

    Hey Tech Zombie,

    thank you so much for your work and everything you do..PLEASE don’t waste time arguing with people over Einstein or similarities b/c the Earth is going down the drain.

    There’s no time to waste now quarreling with people that believe milk is healthy, president Obama is the good guy, America provides peace in world, government serves the people or that the Earth is flat..

    The time is now to throw the shackles of oil slavery that’s corrupted this whole planet..

    Keep up the good work Aether force , proud to help out with the tech. development..

    Peace and love..

  • Boris

    I mean help by donating and recommending website..

  • Bryan

    This is an interesting article. I always thought the theory of relativity sounded a little bogus. Sometimes , we have to follow our intuition to come to the right conclusions. Other times our intuition is way off. My intuition tells me that a big hunk of metal could never fly through the air from San Francisco to Tokyo, but it does. When you get down into the details it makes absolute sense. However, the theory of relativity gets sketchier and sketchier the deeper you get down into it. You have some valid points in your article and get where you are trying to go but I have a few comments. Please excuse my ignorance.

    Your example of how something cannot act upon nothing doesn’t drive the point home for me. Ink on a map is something, and the paper the map is made of is also something. In fact I have printed out a Google map in my printer only to have the paper come out deformed. This may be caused by other physical properties but ink does in fact have weight and it is in fact acting upon the paper. The effects of the weight on the paper are most likely negligible due to the weight and density of the paper itself but do you see my point? I feel like that was a weak illustration.

    Furthermore, you state that Tesla had previously broken the speed limit using longitudinal waves. Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t waves simply disturbances traveling through a medium? In other words the medium itself is not traveling at 1.6X the speed of light nor are any particles traveling at 1.6X the speed of light, so what exactly is breaking the speed limit? If I were to construct a steel beam approximately 1 “light year” in length and I were physically able to displace the beam by only on cm would you then say that the beam traveled faster than the speed of light because the effects of my pushing were felt almost immediately on the other side?

    I feel like I must be missing something elementary here. Please excuse my ignorance if that is the case. I would appreciate a response if you have the time. I found the article otherwise very well put together from my very limited standpoint. Thank you.

  • Pingback: Electrical Engineer Overturns Einstein’s Theory After 97 Years | AMAIC Education()