References
In my search for the aether, I intend to provide a list of papers and books with comments that I used. Of course, first, I decided what the result was, and only then, I searched for the evidence. Yes, the process is biased, but it is not flawed. When you are a good guesser, this process works. I suggest that you guess correctly. If you are not, then trial and error will lead to success eventually. The main problems I had in my search for truth were: (1) the current theory was not correct, and (2) the correct theory was not correctly supported. The references are not alphabetically presented. Rather, they are presented in the approximate order that I stumbled upon them.
• Carnegie, D. How to Stop Worrying and Start Living (1948) Simon and Schuster
“Einstein, the most profound thinker now living, confesses that his conclusions are wrong ninety-nine per cent of the time!” p 176
• van der Togt: Stellar Aberration and Ether (Internet)
I wrote to him but angered him by not giving him honor. He is very smart and has his own ideas. From page 2: “Since vacuum, and hence ether, has no characteristics to achieve any actual change in photon impulse, the observed stellar aberration must be apparent, not real.” In my notes, I wrote “gravity!”.
• van der Togt: Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of the Ether. Galilean Electrodynamics.
I had originally quoted this as supporting evidence for my gravity-is-the-aether approach. However, after I angered him, he asked that I no longer refer to his works. So I quoted someone else on the page.
• Russo, D. Stellar Aberration: the Contradiction between Einstein and Bradley. http:/redshit.vif.com also Apeiron, vol 14 (2) April 2007.
Looking for stationary ether (relative to the sun) doesn’t work (on Earth). Suggests the hypothesis an ether dragged by the Earth as by Stokes (1848).
• Bodanis, D. E=mc^2 (2000) republished 2005 by Holtzbrinck Publishers
I always felt more comfortable with this modified equation 2E=mc^2. But I haven’t looked into it thoroughly.
• Wertheimer. Productive Thinking (1945) Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York
He plotted Einstein’s thinking process; not useful.
• Schwartz and McGuinness. Einstein for Beginners. (1979) Writers and Readers Publishing, Inc.
“Now the space between the bodies was seen as the active carrier of the force.” P62 But what does that mean? (vs. Force at a distance)
• Dance of the Wooly Masters www.geoffreyread.com/Dance of the Wooly M.html
This is very erudite piece of writing, which is well above my head.
• Why Maxwell Couldn’t Explain Gravity. (10/23/13) www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613.htm
They differentiate between “action at a distance” and “field theory”, but I had asked, “Is there a difference?”
• Assis, A.K.T. book review of Gravitation and Cograivitation, by Jefimenko, O.D.
The book presents an extension of Newton that touches upon Einstein. Someone didn’t like fields having a vector look (magnitude and direction). If mass increases with velocity, why not gravity as well (me).
• Does A Uniformly Accelerating Charge Radiate? www.mathpages.com/home/kmath528.htm
Gravitational force does not equal gravitational acceleration (me: force is not acceleration).
• Harvey, B. A Classical Unified theory of Gravity. (2007) Internet.
A new and incomprehensible (to me) theory is presented.
• Mansuripur, M. Trouble with the Lorentz law of force: Incompatibility with special relativity and momentum conservation. College of Optical Sciences, The University of Arizona 85721 (read 10/29/2013)
It seems a bit off track to me. He worries about the hidden momentum in classical electrodynamics.
• Feynman, R.P. QED: the strange theory of light and matter. (1985) & 2006 Princeton University Press
Gravity doesn’t blend with physics (my words, his concept).
• Isaacson, W. Einstein: His Life and Universe. (2007) Simon & Schuster, NY
“To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.” p318 “According to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, there exists an ether.” p318 This is what I mean by “there exists an aether”; we’re just used to calling it gravity (me).
• Uncle John’s 4-Ply Bathroom Reader by The Bathroom Reader’s institute. (1988) St. Martin’s Press, NY
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” p187 from the page headed “Einstein says…”
• Bajnok, J. Twin Paradox 1938-2012 Printed 12/6/2013 Internet
Circular acceleration and Special Relativity (therefore not interesting because I don’t investigate triangles with four sides)
• Banjok, J. The Experimentum Crucis. Printed 12/6/2013 Internet
The aim is to show that relativity and the change in frequency of atomic clocks are not consistent. The paper uses the transverse Doppler Effect.
• Hamdan, N. Derivation of the Relativistic Dopper Effect from the Lorentz force (1/2005) Aperiron, 12(1) 47-61 (from Internet)
It didn’t seem relevant.
• Faraj, A.A. The Ives-Stillwell Experiment. The General Science Journal (Internet)
It explains the Ives-Stillwell experiment, pointing out possible shortcomings.
• Correa, P.N., Correa, A.N., Askanas, M., Gryziecki, G., & Sola-Soler, J. A test of Aetherometry vs Relaitivity, Special and Larmor-Lorentz: the 1938 Ives-Still experiment. www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politcs_of_Science/AS#-1.5_Files/Aetherom_
SR_Ives_Stillwell_PRA.pdf (12/14/13)
It explains the Ives-Stillwell experiment, pointing out possible shortcomings. I believe P.N. Correa is dead, and I am not sure A.N. Correa understands the science. I think delta V =v1 – v2 rather than +.
• Rybczyk, J.A. Ives-Stillwell Experiment Fundamentally Flawed (2007) Printed 12/6/2013 from www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Ives_Stillwell_Exp_Flawed_P1.htm
It points out problems with the experiment.
• Van der Togt, C. Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of the Ether. (Month/Month year) Galilean Electrodynamics
He erroneously decides that “So the ether cannot change the speed of impulse of a photon during its passage from y-Draconis to Earth.” p1 I got him angry with me; didn’t mean to do that. But you can see that he is wrong, except if you accept Einstein’s postulate about the speed of light -- that a dog running at 10m/s towards an unmoving person is also running at 10m/s towards the moving car (I think that is generally not true). In each field of gravity separately, light travels at c relative to the field (me).
• Kaufmann III, W.J. Relativity and Cosmology. (1973) Harper & Row, NY
Me: Kinetic mass is a function of two masses (itself and another), whereas stationary mass is a function of one mass (itself). If I have a mass 0 that is traveling at c/100 relative to mass 1 (it’s name) then mass 0 is a kinetic mass with respect to m1 and it acts as if it is heavy (hard to accelerate). And the same is found for m1 (symmetry)! But m1 will gravitationally be unchanged to the Earth. If it weighed 10lbs before m0 took off, it yet weighs 10lbs. Thus, we have a gravitational mass that has a large number of kinetic masses (one each for m1, m2, m3…). Makes one think. OK, times up. It’s silly, huh.
• Rado, S. Aethro-dynamics: volume II – 2009 Aethron Publishing Company, Los Angles
The subtitle is “An alternate solution to the problems of theoretical physics and cosmology.” This book mixes well known facts, obscure facts, questionable facts, and who-knows-what-else. The prologue has a sentence with 72 words. It is my understanding that humans, using English, only understand about half of what is written when the sentence extends to 17 words. (The previous sentence was long by design.) I boast that I can understand sentences up to 34 words in length. So, I haven’t got a chance to understand what he writes. On the other hand, he seems to like the concept of ether.
• Barnett, L. The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1959) Mento Book, NY (Introduction by Prof. Einstein).
• Beckmann, P. Einstein Plus Two. (1987) The Golem Press, Boulder, Colorado
Beckmann beats the horse to death. He presents a model of physics without relativity. He is very critical of Einstein’s physics; I believe that Beckmann is mostly correct. Of course, he came 50 years after Einstein. P155: “; the flaw is in Einstein theory’s assumption that the laws of physics apply with the observer-referred rather than the field-referred velocities.” Although he doesn’t say this, I think that the gravity field is the correct field for referred velocities. Beckmann seems to accept of any old field in the neighborhood; maybe he’s right.
In my search for the aether, I intend to provide a list of papers and books with comments that I used. Of course, first, I decided what the result was, and only then, I searched for the evidence. Yes, the process is biased, but it is not flawed. When you are a good guesser, this process works. I suggest that you guess correctly. If you are not, then trial and error will lead to success eventually. The main problems I had in my search for truth were: (1) the current theory was not correct, and (2) the correct theory was not correctly supported. The references are not alphabetically presented. Rather, they are presented in the approximate order that I stumbled upon them.
• Carnegie, D. How to Stop Worrying and Start Living (1948) Simon and Schuster
“Einstein, the most profound thinker now living, confesses that his conclusions are wrong ninety-nine per cent of the time!” p 176
• van der Togt: Stellar Aberration and Ether (Internet)
I wrote to him but angered him by not giving him honor. He is very smart and has his own ideas. From page 2: “Since vacuum, and hence ether, has no characteristics to achieve any actual change in photon impulse, the observed stellar aberration must be apparent, not real.” In my notes, I wrote “gravity!”.
• van der Togt: Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of the Ether. Galilean Electrodynamics.
I had originally quoted this as supporting evidence for my gravity-is-the-aether approach. However, after I angered him, he asked that I no longer refer to his works. So I quoted someone else on the page.
• Russo, D. Stellar Aberration: the Contradiction between Einstein and Bradley. http:/redshit.vif.com also Apeiron, vol 14 (2) April 2007.
Looking for stationary ether (relative to the sun) doesn’t work (on Earth). Suggests the hypothesis an ether dragged by the Earth as by Stokes (1848).
• Bodanis, D. E=mc^2 (2000) republished 2005 by Holtzbrinck Publishers
I always felt more comfortable with this modified equation 2E=mc^2. But I haven’t looked into it thoroughly.
• Wertheimer. Productive Thinking (1945) Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York
He plotted Einstein’s thinking process; not useful.
• Schwartz and McGuinness. Einstein for Beginners. (1979) Writers and Readers Publishing, Inc.
“Now the space between the bodies was seen as the active carrier of the force.” P62 But what does that mean? (vs. Force at a distance)
• Dance of the Wooly Masters www.geoffreyread.com/Dance of the Wooly M.html
This is very erudite piece of writing, which is well above my head.
• Why Maxwell Couldn’t Explain Gravity. (10/23/13) www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613.htm
They differentiate between “action at a distance” and “field theory”, but I had asked, “Is there a difference?”
• Assis, A.K.T. book review of Gravitation and Cograivitation, by Jefimenko, O.D.
The book presents an extension of Newton that touches upon Einstein. Someone didn’t like fields having a vector look (magnitude and direction). If mass increases with velocity, why not gravity as well (me).
• Does A Uniformly Accelerating Charge Radiate? www.mathpages.com/home/kmath528.htm
Gravitational force does not equal gravitational acceleration (me: force is not acceleration).
• Harvey, B. A Classical Unified theory of Gravity. (2007) Internet.
A new and incomprehensible (to me) theory is presented.
• Mansuripur, M. Trouble with the Lorentz law of force: Incompatibility with special relativity and momentum conservation. College of Optical Sciences, The University of Arizona 85721 (read 10/29/2013)
It seems a bit off track to me. He worries about the hidden momentum in classical electrodynamics.
• Feynman, R.P. QED: the strange theory of light and matter. (1985) & 2006 Princeton University Press
Gravity doesn’t blend with physics (my words, his concept).
• Isaacson, W. Einstein: His Life and Universe. (2007) Simon & Schuster, NY
“To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.” p318 “According to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, there exists an ether.” p318 This is what I mean by “there exists an aether”; we’re just used to calling it gravity (me).
• Uncle John’s 4-Ply Bathroom Reader by The Bathroom Reader’s institute. (1988) St. Martin’s Press, NY
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” p187 from the page headed “Einstein says…”
• Bajnok, J. Twin Paradox 1938-2012 Printed 12/6/2013 Internet
Circular acceleration and Special Relativity (therefore not interesting because I don’t investigate triangles with four sides)
• Banjok, J. The Experimentum Crucis. Printed 12/6/2013 Internet
The aim is to show that relativity and the change in frequency of atomic clocks are not consistent. The paper uses the transverse Doppler Effect.
• Hamdan, N. Derivation of the Relativistic Dopper Effect from the Lorentz force (1/2005) Aperiron, 12(1) 47-61 (from Internet)
It didn’t seem relevant.
• Faraj, A.A. The Ives-Stillwell Experiment. The General Science Journal (Internet)
It explains the Ives-Stillwell experiment, pointing out possible shortcomings.
• Correa, P.N., Correa, A.N., Askanas, M., Gryziecki, G., & Sola-Soler, J. A test of Aetherometry vs Relaitivity, Special and Larmor-Lorentz: the 1938 Ives-Still experiment. www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politcs_of_Science/AS#-1.5_Files/Aetherom_
SR_Ives_Stillwell_PRA.pdf (12/14/13)
It explains the Ives-Stillwell experiment, pointing out possible shortcomings. I believe P.N. Correa is dead, and I am not sure A.N. Correa understands the science. I think delta V =v1 – v2 rather than +.
• Rybczyk, J.A. Ives-Stillwell Experiment Fundamentally Flawed (2007) Printed 12/6/2013 from www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Ives_Stillwell_Exp_Flawed_P1.htm
It points out problems with the experiment.
• Van der Togt, C. Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of the Ether. (Month/Month year) Galilean Electrodynamics
He erroneously decides that “So the ether cannot change the speed of impulse of a photon during its passage from y-Draconis to Earth.” p1 I got him angry with me; didn’t mean to do that. But you can see that he is wrong, except if you accept Einstein’s postulate about the speed of light -- that a dog running at 10m/s towards an unmoving person is also running at 10m/s towards the moving car (I think that is generally not true). In each field of gravity separately, light travels at c relative to the field (me).
• Kaufmann III, W.J. Relativity and Cosmology. (1973) Harper & Row, NY
Me: Kinetic mass is a function of two masses (itself and another), whereas stationary mass is a function of one mass (itself). If I have a mass 0 that is traveling at c/100 relative to mass 1 (it’s name) then mass 0 is a kinetic mass with respect to m1 and it acts as if it is heavy (hard to accelerate). And the same is found for m1 (symmetry)! But m1 will gravitationally be unchanged to the Earth. If it weighed 10lbs before m0 took off, it yet weighs 10lbs. Thus, we have a gravitational mass that has a large number of kinetic masses (one each for m1, m2, m3…). Makes one think. OK, times up. It’s silly, huh.
• Rado, S. Aethro-dynamics: volume II – 2009 Aethron Publishing Company, Los Angles
The subtitle is “An alternate solution to the problems of theoretical physics and cosmology.” This book mixes well known facts, obscure facts, questionable facts, and who-knows-what-else. The prologue has a sentence with 72 words. It is my understanding that humans, using English, only understand about half of what is written when the sentence extends to 17 words. (The previous sentence was long by design.) I boast that I can understand sentences up to 34 words in length. So, I haven’t got a chance to understand what he writes. On the other hand, he seems to like the concept of ether.
• Barnett, L. The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1959) Mento Book, NY (Introduction by Prof. Einstein).
• Beckmann, P. Einstein Plus Two. (1987) The Golem Press, Boulder, Colorado
Beckmann beats the horse to death. He presents a model of physics without relativity. He is very critical of Einstein’s physics; I believe that Beckmann is mostly correct. Of course, he came 50 years after Einstein. P155: “; the flaw is in Einstein theory’s assumption that the laws of physics apply with the observer-referred rather than the field-referred velocities.” Although he doesn’t say this, I think that the gravity field is the correct field for referred velocities. Beckmann seems to accept of any old field in the neighborhood; maybe he’s right.