Macri’ (Italian)
 Monti (Italian)


   On May 1999 the international conference"Galileo Back in Italy II" took place in Bologna, mostly aimed to discuss criticism against Special (and General) Relativity.
   Here it is the conference’s announcement:

International Conference "Galileo Back in Italy - II"
For the Return of Rationality in Modern Physics
Bologna, Italy, 26-28 May 1999

   In spite of great technological success, physics at the end of the century has come under more and more criticism. It is charged with having lost its character as an experimental science, becoming too abstract and mathematical.
   P.K. Feyerabend considers this science mostly "very dull, and more deceptive, than that of XVI or XVII centuries was". R. Thom remarks that in it there is "a horrible mixture between incorrect fundamental concepts and a fantastic numerical precision", pretending to get "very rigorous numerical results from theories which conceptually are nonsense".
   The unquestionable practical success of physics has actually minimized the critical interest in fundamental postulates and their interpretation, so that there is a whole series of conceptual riddles which force a re-examination of the foundations of physics today.
   Roughly speaking, these fall into two great schemes: the relativistic, and quantum theories. In both, the common notions of space, time and causality are so deeply modified, that a whole new philosophy has been built in order to support the view that Nature cannot be explained by classical principles of rationality, built upon the three intellectual categories.
   As Nobel prize winner R.P. Feynman asserts, one has to "accept Nature as She is - absurd". The renouncing of the "adaequatio rei et intellectus", which should be the primary aim of any scientific research, has led to the result that the great majority of physicists have lost all hope of being able to understand Nature. Instead, an unpleasant kind of resignation has taken over.
   But a critical reaction is developing. Criticism of the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of quantum mechanics had begun already in the 70s; that of "special" relativity has endured since 1905, but it was always vehemently and systematically suppressed, to the point that this theory has now become "the holy of holies" of modern physics. But the very success of Einstein’s point of view has insinuated into the heart of physics, the arbitrary definitions typical of modern formalistic mathematics with its presumption to be free, in its conceptual foundations, from any kind of intuition.
   Furthermore, the disappearance of the concept of an ether, as a result to the Einsteinian "solution" of electromagnetic problems, has made it impossible to prove that in the physical properties of "empty space" there might be an argument against the claims of inexplicability of microphysical phenomena.

   We ask all scientists who find some reasonable elements in the above, to take part in the international conference, which will take place in Bologna, Italy, May 26-28, 1999.

   For further information please contact:

Umberto Bartocci     Roberto Monti
Dipartimento di Matematica Università Istituto TESRE - CNR
Via Vanvitelli, 1     Via P. Gobetti, 101
06100 Perugia - Italy    40129 Bologna - Italy
Tel.: 0039-075-5002494    Tel.: 0039-051-6398702
Fax: 0039-075-5855024    Fax: 0039-051-6398724
E-mail:  E-mail:

Scientific Committee: Umberto Bartocci, Patrick Cornille, George Galeczki, Rocco Vittorio Macrì, Roberto Monti, James Paul Wesley.

The Conference is sponsored by the Monti America Corporation.

[This announcement appeared in "21st Century Science & Technology", Vol. 12, N. 1, Spring 1999, pp. 86-87]

   The conference was a very interesting event, since it allowed to gather up together and to make personally know each other many relativity dissidents. Nevertheless, the assembler of this "virtual book", Umberto Bartocci, felt that a great part of the presented criticism was diminished by some misinterpretation of Einstein’s theories, and felt himself obliged to produce for the forthcoming "Proceedings" of the conference a paper intitled "Most common misunderstandings about Special Relativity". Furthermore, after an epistular exchange with James Paul Wesley (which is here enclosed), he sent, either by Internet or by mail, the following "Inquiry" to many phyisicists known for their critical aptitude towards the present foundations of physics.

"Dear friend,
shortly after the Bologna’s meeting, I received a letter from James Paul Wesley in which he asserted, between other things, that:

"Contrary to your apparent belief, "special relativity" presents obvious horrendous mathematical contradictions and errors, as pointed out by thousands of individuals since 1905 onward".

   I answered to him saying that "after 20 years of study of the question, and to my best knowledge, I have found that all presumed "contradictions" were just due to misinterpretations of relativity from the side of the relativity detractors. I have written in a hurry the inclosed paper for the Bologna’s Proceedings, even with the aim of a public answer to you, and to all our friends, who unfortunately insist in defending wrong sides of this question. Of course, I can have made some mistake, and then I would be happy to know which".

   Furthermore, I asked to him:

1) could you choose the best argument against relativity between this thousand that you say (and I mean now a mathematical contradiction which has already been put in evidence by somebody in the past)?

2) what is, in your opinion, the actual best argument (whether experimental, or theoretical, or logical, or mathematical, as you wish) that one could produce today against relativity?

   I added I would have proposed to answer to these same questions even to other friends fighting our same battle (but not necessarily), and so I send to you this letter, and the aforesaid paper, hoping that you will be willing to help me in this inquiry (and to correct my possible mistakes).

   Thank you very much indeed for your attention,
                                           best greetings from yours most sincerely

Perugia, 15 July 1999                                        Umberto Bartocci"

   This "challenge" originated a very intense and interesting exchange of opinions, of which thereafter you have a record (which, in general, does not include successive comments).

   Have a nice reading.

November 1999                                   (Umberto Bartocci)


Subject:         Re: Your inquiry.
   Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:08:11 +0100
     To:         "umberto bartocci" <>

Dear Professor Bartocci,

When I first read your message inviting comment as to the validity of SRT I decided not to comment.  However, I later have had occasion to send an E-Mail comment to David Bergman who also received your message, but on the subject of inertia, rather than SRT.  I think it is appropriate to send you a copy of a follow-up message that I have just sent him, as I make reference to your communication.

The message reads:

Thank you for your prompt response to my comments on inertia.

I will respond more fully when I have had time to digest the reference you
gave to the CSS Web Site.

I did not join in the exchanges on the SRT issue raised by Umberto Bartocci but I do offer the following comments and will send a copy of this message to him.

Einstein introduced his theory of relativity back in 1905 by a paper on Electrodynamics and one on Inertia.  The latter was entitled: 'Does the Inertia of a Body depend upon its Energy Content?'  The popular opinion of the scientific community is that proof of the relationship E=Mc(squared) is proof of Einstein's theory.  I have never accepted that, because the relationship is derivable from classical 19th century theory. One obtained E = 3/4 times Mc(squared) by following J J Thomson's teachings on the subject as applied to an electron, but he assumed that the charge was all confined to a spherical surface, as if the charge form were a conductive sphere in the laboratory. One can easily show that, if the charge is distributed inside that sphere so as to set up a constant electrostatic pressure within that sphere, then that 3/4 factor becomes unity and the normal E=Mc(squared) formula results.

So, the issue of whether SRT is valid or not depends upon other evidence and, to my mind, the notion that it explains the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is not such evidence.  The physics community today is getting all excited about Bose-Einstein Condensation (BEC), the perfect quantum fluid which, by experiments on the Quantized Hall Effect, gives us a wonderful way of measuring the fine-structure constant.  The theory I developed for that constant some 40 and more years ago is an aether model closely resembling that quantum fluid. The theory gave the fine-structure constant to part per million accuracy and that theoretical finding, confirmed by computer analysis by The National Measurement Laboratory in Australia, was reported by that laboratory in 1972 in Physics Letters.  So the aether is a perfect quantum fluid.  In the 19th century it was thought the aether exhibited the properties of a solid and of a fluid, a confusing proposition, so Einstein abolished the need for the aether when he first appeared on the scene back in 1905. He can be excused for not appreciating at the time that the properties of the fluid crystal if attributed as a perfect quantum fluid form in the aether could explain that Michelson-Morley finding.  Not surprisingly we have since seen the computer industry build on the use of fluid crystal technology and we are seeing fundamental metrology concerning h, c and e using the version of that adaptable and structured charge system in low temperature semiconductor technology based on the Bose-Einstein condensate.

That said, I admit I have no real patience with the struggle to argue the pros and cons of SRT and the effort to find a winner amongst a forum of the 1000 objections mentioned by Professor Bartocci.  However, in view of your concern with inertia and my note to you on that subject, I will just draw attention to a short phrase in each of those 1905 papers by Einstein.  In section 10 of the Electrodynamics paper he writes under the heading 'Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron' and along comes the sentence:
'As the electron is to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put down as equal to the energy of motion of the electron.'
Now, surely that is an absurd statement.  How can therelativistic mass formula which he derives depend upon the history of the electron's acceleration always involving slow acceleration? Where does the threshold set in between 'slow' and 'fast enough for radiation to occur'?
It destroys his whole case, though my argument that an electron cannot radiate its energy at all can save the situation linking relativistic mass increase and E=Mc(squared).  However, as you will have seen, my argument, then gives directly that E=Mc(squared) formula without needing Einstein's transformation theory. So then we come to his 1905 paper on Inertia and, to one's extreme surprise, we find he derives an equation concerning which he immediately notes: 'If a body gives off energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c(squared).' I submit, therefore, that here in the same year 1905 he presented two papers which contradict one another, but yet he has carried the scientific world with him on this energy-mass relationship and left the good work of J J Thomson on this topic to be buried along with the aether.  So my message to Professor Bartocci is to say that the best case against SRT is Einstein's own words, his contradicting assertions on the subject of relativistic mass and the inertia of energy which are to be found in his 1905 papers!  Einstein's theory of relativity is best forgotten, but Einstein's good name looks like it can carry due weight in connection with the 'Bose-Einstein Condensate'.
That is if the physics community ever wake up to the fact that they are getting close to having produced a laboratory model that replicates the true form of the real aether, having, on the one hand, the laboratory experiment which measures the basic quantum regulator, the fine-structure constant, and, on the other hand, but hidden from view, the real aether which truly determines that constant and regulates the electron activity in atoms.

With best regards,

Harold Aspden


[From a letter to George Galeczki]

   I would prefer instead to make some final considerations about the points which were at the beginning of our exchange of opinions, hoping not only that doing so my personal position in this occasion will be no more misunderstood, - as somebody did, as I would have become a supporter of relativity! - but mostly hoping that at last we will be able to share some important starting point for our common critics to nowadays physics.

   One should not forget that it all started with some opinions of Wesley, which I found outstandingly wrong, outside any possibility of "freedom of thought".

(A) First big mistake, at the historical-sociological level:
"I would like to take exception to the claim that the majority of physicists still believe in special relativity [SR]: according to my actual pole, sampling over 100 physicists’ beliefs, less than 5 percent still believe in special relativity. Why discuss a dead issue? Why beat a dead horse?"

   Quite on the contrary, I remember for instance Santilli’s efforts to introduce at least a "scientific ethics" in the scientific world (namely, just to quote some suggestion: not to reject a priori the publication of counter-current papers, remember as scientists the duty to answer to criticism, and so on), and he estimated at the time that less than 1 over 2000 answered positively to his call! The truth is that the greatest majority of physicists believe that ONLY A CRANK WOULD CHALLENGE EINSTEIN, and that they believe that we all are a little crazy!!
   Perhaps I am wrong, and it is true that only 5% of physicists control the minds of the other 90% (I leave apart, rather optimistically, the 5%, taking into consideration our small active group!), but then the "scandal" would be even greater than everybody on the Earth would have ever dreamt of! The plain "fact", under everybody’s eyes, is that relativity is always there, considered by common belief as one of the greatest scientific achievement of our century, and perhaps of all times: a theory "without the shadow of a doubt" (Clifford Will), or in which "a doubt would be the same as a doubt about Copernican system" (Tullio Regge).

(B) second mistake, at the logical-mathematical level:
"Contrary to your apparent belief, SR presents obvious horrendous mathematical contradictions and errors, as pointed out by thousands of individuals since 1905 onward."

   As you know, I have made this opinion the object of an explicit question in my questionary. Well, not one of these thousand "contradictions" came out until now! Wesley sent to me the indication that, in his opinion: "The Lorentz transformation do not even form a group in 3 space and 1 time dimension" (4.Aug.99), which is really unbelievable, since one introduces "by definition" a "Lorentz group", as a (big) subgroup of Poincare’s group! To this objection I answered in my mail of 13.Aug.99, saying that "Lorentz transformations are "by definition" the so-called homogeneous isometries [time-orientation preserving], and Wesley perhaps simply confuses the special Lorentz transformations with the general Lorentz transformations. It is obvious that when you take the simplest case of Lor. transf., the ones which are in all textbooks, with y’=y and z’=z, you are simply considering a subgroup of the whole Lorentz group, and when you take for instance x’=x and z’=z then you get another subgroup, which is different from the first one! - so, when you multiply one transf. which is in one subgroup with a transf. which is in the other subgroup, then you obviously get a transf. which is not in both subgroups! This is simple group theory, that one learns in the 1st year of the university, and it cannot be a matter of opinion!".

   You tried to give me another one of these arguments (I would like to say, pseudo-arguments!), I mean your reference to an argument contained in a book by Walter Theimer, a scientist unknown to me (your fax of 23.Jul.99). But then that argument was not, to say the least, very clear, and in truth you too acknowledged immediately this circumstance: "My yesterday evening comment on your question 1 is incomplete, thus not efficient" (fax of 24.Jul.99). Furthermore, you admitted at last that: "SR is indeed a nightmare, but a physical, rather than a mathematical one"; and that: "I understand your feelings very well, since many SR critics are wrong, and since errors from the side of critics are amplified by the asymmetry of the situation" (mail of 23.Aug.99).

   With these last words, you gave me reason twice, acknowledging not only the presence of many errors in our field, but even the "asymmetry" of the situation. The truth is that we are just a few against a multitude, a multitude which Wesley estimates 5% !! May I add that, if it is very human to make mistakes, why however should one insist so much on them?, after all this would be counter-productive for the whole our "cause" against SR...

(C) third mistake, at the experimental-physical level:
"You make the strange claim that SR can explain the old stuff, the empirical facts, of Roemer, Bradley, Sagnac, etc.; whereas, in fact, SR flatly and explicitly contradicts these facts."

   Here the question becomes to be more interesting from a scientific point of view, and important. I admit that there is some possibility that I am wrong, but as far as that matter like the majority of other physicists and mathematicians! But until now I did not receive any specifical technical indication that some single line, some single computation, in my paper "Most common misunderstandings..." was wrong. I do not take into account philosophical, epistemological, and so on, objections, in which I include for instance your objection that: "an IFR has to be a massive structure" (your mail of 9.Aug.99). With such a kind of "requirements" that a physical theory should satisfy, I do very often agree, but I even believe that it is useless to express our dissatisfaction between us. We all in our small group would perhaps agree, but the point is to persuade of this dissatisfaction other people, and that can be only achieved by showing that SR is plainly wrong from the experimental point of view (there is no possibility to question the "logical" validity of SR!!), either in some of its assumptions, or in some of its predictions, but it will not be an easy task!

[After all, let me say that, if Wesley’s opinions were true, then all our efforts would be very much diminished, since the struggle against relativity would be very easy to be carried on, which is definitively not true!! To defeat relativity would be instead a major task in the history of the scientific thought, even for all general cultural consequences that it would have...]

   I wish to point out that the last words of Wesley concern an assertion about SR ("SR flatly and explicitly contradicts these facts"), and not about any physical truth, and so they can be discussed with rigorous logical mathematical methodology, without any concern about "experiments" and so on. Of course, since this is an assertion about what SR could foresee or not, its proof should presume in advance that the man who is doing that assertion has well understood what SR is, and how one can deduce right consequences from its postulates - but this, I must frankly confess it, in my now very long experience, is a task that most anti-relativistic physicists seem unable to do correctly! I ask to you again, for instance, what are your comments about the Remark at the end of my section 5, which was one of the most outstanding Stefan’s mistake - and it was even published in a printed form! - one of those great misunderstandings about the exact meaning of relativistic concepts, in which I see that unfortunately many other friends fall in?! (and excuse, but let me say that even the alleged "symmetry" of the travel of the two "twins" is one of these great misunderstandings - but, please, why one should wish to win the battle against Einstein using this kind of "weak" arguments, and not to go into the real battle-field, that of the experiments, like for instance Cornille does, and, just to quote one possibility, of the presumed "symmetry" of the electromagnetic phenomenology?!)

   I hope that you will acknowledge that about Bradley’s aberration, in particular, you seemed at first willing to defend Wesley’s opinion, for instance when you sayed that: "According to SR, Doppler-effect and stellar aberration are companion effects. The Doppler effect, however, is a function of relative velocity, while Bradley’s aberration is a function of the orbital velocity of the earth around the sun, but clearly the relative velocity earth-star is different from the orbital earth’s velocity" (your fax of 18.Jun.99). I believe to have answered quite well to this objection in my paper (see in particular Remark 1 in section 7), showing that in relativity aberraton is just a "differential" effect, and that there is in fact a difference between the classical and the relativistic point of view, but unfortunately experiments aimed to find what point of view would exactly be true are impossible to be performed!

[I believe that a possibility to check whether "relativistic aberration" is true or not - remember that SR prescribes just the invariance of the "speed" of light from the velocity of the source, and not of the "velocity" of light! - is described in footnote N. 21 of my paper: "This phenomenon could perhaps be the conceptual ground for some experiment aimed to compare SR’s predictions with analogous aether-theoretic expectations, since one could suppose that it would be natural, in an aether-frame, to have total independence of the light’s velocity from the velocity of the source. One could think for instance to use the circular platform of section N. 3 for sending a light’s ray from a directional laser source, placed in the border of the platform, towards the centre, and then to check whether this ray arrives exactly in this point, or it is instead dragged from the velocity, as SR would predict!"]

   During our discussion, you said to me that I was excessive in the role I choosed of "advocatus diaboli", and I can admit that perhaps my action was "politically" inopportune, since it could have the effect to diminish rather than strengthen our group. But I deeply believe that if one makes so many obviously wrong assertions, then most of our possible interlocutors would totally reject any other claim from that person, and even from the whole party to which he belongs, namely all the anti-relativistic party, which I try to defend, and to make really grow up...

   It remains to discuss the possible best strategy for defeating relativity, and I wish to defend my proposed point of view (which does not share any enthusiastic admiration for SR, as Wesley thinks!), starting from a declaration coming from the "Annals of Physics", that one can find in one of Stefan’s book ("The Thorny Way of Truth", Vol. I, p. 214): "As you must surely realize, SR has been verified in an enormous number of different experimental situations. Any attempt to modify it must therefore not only demonstrate some deviation from experimental work but also must show how the large body of supporting evidence can be reinterpreted or shown to be incorrect. This is, I well recognize, an enormous task. But the reinterpretation of the work of the last century need not to be expected of minor importance".
   As a matter of fact, I do not agree with this journal’s aptitude, but I supposed that the previous words were in some sense true, or enough true, not supposing that the physicists were all so deeply blind or cheaters! Then, starting from this hypothetical truth, or even half a truth, I tried:
- first, to find alternative explanations for the presumed "successes" of relativity;
- second, to propose to look at some other phenomenology, different from the usual one, in order to find experimental contradictions of relativity with Nature.
   Then, the only possibility which seemed practicable to me, trying to avoid all usual well known objections of Einstein’s supporters, was to point out the asymmetry of electromagnetic phenomenology. If there was an "absolute velocity" of the Earth, of such a big order, as 300 Km/sec, as you suppose, but even a smaller one, around 9 Km/sec, I think that it should have be detected by electromagnetic experiments; but then neither Cardone did find anything corresponding to a velocity of that size. Of course, there is the possibility that even Maxwell electrodynamics, in its "classical interpretation" - on which all the "predictions" known to me are founded -  is completely wrong, but then I cannot go personally any further, since I do not know any other alternative theories (like for instance Weber’s electrodynamics, and so on). I would be very curious to see what other electrodynamics would predict for the interactions in the classical "comoving cases", one of which has been carefully studied in the paper "Symmetries and asymmetries...", by Mamone Capria and myself, to which I often make reference. If these other theories too would foresee a non zero effect, then one should start to accept indeed the possibility that Descartes and Leibniz were not so wrong (and today Hayden, or Tewari), and that the relative velocity earth-aether is zero, or very near to zero...

   The other possibility left, the one which for instance Monti supports, is that the previous assertion of "Annals of Physics" is not true, and that relativity has not so many experiments in its favour (perhaps not even a single one!), the contrary as it is written in every textbook. It seems to me that even in some recent words of Selleri one can see some hint that we are in front of a very big "fraud". Your words are even more clear in this direction: "You seem to be more concerned with your suspicions regarding some experiments of Marinov, than with the systematic falsifications of the data by blackmailed and/or corrupted Einstein believers" (your mail of 15.Aug.99). Perhaps this is true, but I just cannot accept it "a priori" completely, because I continue to believe in some sense in the objectivity of science, and in the moral qualities of scientists; a world that after all I love, and I would be very surprised to have to acknowledge instead that it is very corrupted, as the world of politics, of economy, and of historians and press men...
   I feel that the struggle in this second direction would be harder than in the first one, but of course everybody is free to choose the way he feels more corresponding to the "truth", and I sincerely wish all success to all people trying to restore rationality in modern physics, either in a way or in the other...

   I thank you always very much for your attention,
best greetings, from yours most sincerely

Umberto Bartocci

   Summing up:

1) There are no mathematical contradictions in SR, which is quite a coherent theory.

2) In order to defeat SR, one has to look for his possible experimental failures, which is perhaps a task not so easy, since it would requiry measurements performed in two different (almost) inertial reference frames really moving one with respect to the other. All alleged proofs in favour of SR are in my opinion INDIRECT proofs, most presuming that Earth is not at rest with respect to the "aether"; one should check more   the validity of the principle of relativity for electromagnetic phenomena, the "induction" that forced Einstein to propose this principle is just a very special case in Maxwell theory, which in general is not relativistic, in its "classical" interpretation. Experiments of the kind of the so called "Rowlands inverse experiment", often discussed by Stefan Marinov and Francisco Muller, could perhaps show at last that SR is physically wrong.

   In conclusion, I completely agree with Del Larson’s and McCarthy’s opinions below:

"If we try to come up with theoretical arguments to show how special relativity is wrong, we will lose. SR has been studied and celebrated for generations now. If there was a theoretical flaw it would have been found long ago ... from a mathematical (and therefore theoretical) sense, special relativity is completely consistent and correct. Arguing that point merely shows a misunderstanding of the theory".

"Some people think it's silly to argue that it's just a big conspiracy of coincidences that electromagnetism should exhibit so many properties that are unique to media--including interference, Doppler, Lorentzian retardations, Sagnac effect, aberration, refraction, diffraction, amplitude, frequency, etc. If you don't believe electromagnetism is a media process, then it must seem as if this allegedly intangible force of the universe was deliberately endowed with a plethora of media characteristics just to fool people like Maxwell, Huygens, Lorentz, Bradley, Young, Fizeau, and Sagnac".

U. Bartocci, M. Mamone Capria, "Symmetries and Asymmetries in Classical and Relativistic Electrodynamics", Foundations of Physics, 21, 7, 1991, pp. 787-801;
U. Bartocci, "Most common misunderstandings about Special Relativity", to appear in the Proceedings of the International Conference "Galileo Back in Italy II", Bologna, 1999.

Umberto Bartocci
Dipartimento di Matematica - Universita’
06100 Perugia - Italy


Subject: Errors in SRT
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 16:19:22 -0400
From: Dave Bergman <>
To: umberto bartocci <>

Dear Professor Bartocci,

Thank you for including me in your message about SRT.

I think that the best argument against SRT is the one given by Einstein
himself.  He says that the Second Postulate is "quite irreconcilable" with
the first.  A translation into English states:

"In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall call the
Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption,---an
assumption which is at first sight quite irreconcilable with the former
one---that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is
independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body." [The Principle
of Relativity, Original Papers by A. Einstein and H. Minkowski,
translated into English by M. N. Saha and S. N. Bose, University of
Calcutta, 1920]

Einstein does not say WHY the two postulates are "quite irreconcilable."
You should determine this for yourself or see my writings.  If you knew why they are irreconcilable, you would understand that Einstein has departed from the Axiomatic Method that is essential in science.

By assuming two postulates that cannot be reconciled, Einstein abandoned the Scientific Method and the logical basis for science.  This error was repeated by Niels Bohr in 1913 with the result that most of fundamental physics of the Twentieth Century must be replaced with scientific models and theories.

The next-best argument against SRT is the superior theory offered by Common Sense Science to replace SRT.

The principle result of Einstein's error has been to perpetuate confusion
over the concept of inertia. While his theory provided a way to include the so-called "relativistic effects" of mass increase and length contraction,
which were not predicted by Maxwell's theory due to errors in the Maxwell equation for magnetic induction, these results have recently been properly developed from first principles and the fundamental laws of
electrodynamics.  The new theory is an explanation for the origin of
inertial mass and Newton's laws of mechanics.  As Marnisek has stated with regard to papers reviewed at the Cologne Conference of 1997,

"A Causal Explanation of "Inertial Force"

"Bergman succeeded in showing that inertia is not an intrinsic property of
matter in the sense of inertial mechanics and that the so-called inertial
forces are real forces.  His argument is not based on a conception analysis
of axioms of classical mechanics but on a quasi-electrodynamic mechanism for moving charged particles which he showed to be the cause for the inertial effect.  The quantity of inertial force depends upon velocity and acceleration.  Bergman's causal explanation of inertial forces as real, self-induced reaction forces is based on electrodynamic effects on the spinning charged ring model.  According to this explanation, inertial mass is a derived concept and not a fundamental one.  Because primary
electrodynamic force laws determine inertial mass, force is necessarily a
fundamental concept in physics." [Johann Marinsek, "Descartes, the Inventor of the Principle of Inertia," Convegno Cartesio e la scienza 1596-1996 Perugia, Sept. 4-7, 1997]

Upon request, I will supply you with papers of the theory to replace SRT.
Also, in about two weeks I will be mailing the next issue of "Foundations
of Science" to all subscribers, including yourself.  This issue carries an
article titled "Origins of Inertial Mass" that summarizes the main points
of the new electrodymics.

Best Regards,
Dave Bergman
Common Sense Science


Subject:         Simple Argument Against STR
   Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
   From:         Clarence Dulaney <>
     To:         Umberto Bartocci <>

Dear Umberto,
Our colleagues have been presenting arguments against
STR that depend on the definition of terms such as
"invariant" and "covariant".
I think there is a much simpler argument concerning
inertial frames.
Principle 1 of STR, quoting Max Born "There are an
infinite number of systems of reference (inertial
systems) moving uniformly and rectilinearly with
respect to each other, in which all physical laws
assume the simplest form (originally derived for
absolute space or the stationary ether.)"
I submit that there is not a single such frame.  Any
such system would have had to be moving at a constant
speed since the beginning of time.  Any other system
would have to have been accelerated (positive or
negatively) to achieve constant speed, thus defeating
the "uniformly and rectilinearly" restriction.
Thus, even if the mathematics and other machinations
of STR are correct, they are based on a flawed
principle. Thus, STR is at best only an approximation.
 This is exactly what the Relativists have claimed for
the Newtonian, Galilean mechanics.

Best Regards,

Clarence Dulaney


Subject: connection test
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:06:03 +0200
From: "George Galeczki" <>
To: <>

Very dear Umberto,
this is just a test of my recent internet connection and an opportunity to
give you my address. We returned yesterday from a 12 days vacation in
Brenzone sul Lago (on the east bank of Lago di Garda) and found in my mail box your brief. Thanks a lot for the nice pictures which will remind me on the Bologna-Conference 1999. I shall comment within several days your opinions on the Bradley abberation , as well as your contribution to the conference. Anyhow, stellar aberration shows clearly that the velocity of light depends on the absolute (in 1-st approximation)velocity of the
observer (earth), rather than of the  source -or on the relative velocity
between source and observer. This undoubtly disproves the light-velocity
postulate of SRT, which claims independence on both source and detector
I expect from you to realize the arguments based on the absence of "Thomas precession" -a necessary consequence of the group structure of Lorentz transformations in (3 + 1)-D - thus disqualifying SRT as a physical theory.
There are different ways to show the untenability of SRT, but this one is
best suited for peaple like you, who are mathematically educated.
You are perfectly right in your criticism of some (many) dissidents, but
don´t exagerate playing the "advocatus diaboli"!
I´m grateful to you for organizing the Bologna-Conference, which allowed me to meet Francisco Müller and others in person.
Wishing you all the best for the holiday season,
                                                          very sincerely


Subject:         Re: your two questions
   Date:         Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:44:58 +0200
   From:         "George Galeczki" <>
     To:         "umberto bartocci" <>

Carissimo Umberto,
I received this morning the mail containing your letter to Paul, his answer, as well as the preliminary version of your contribution to the Bologna conference. Well, the rôle of the "advocatus diaboli" is a very necessary one and I, myself, have played it for a couple of years in the eighties.
Concerning your two explicit questions:

1) There have been just a few -rather than tausends- people during the past nine decades who pointed out, or hinted at MATHEMATICAL contradictions in SRT. One among them was Walter Theimer, the author of "Die Relativitätstheorie: Lehre, Wirkung, Kritik" (A. Francke, Bern and München, 1977). He observed that the definition of light velocity in two IFR´s in the SRT scenario requires:  c = x / t = x´ / t  , which is impossible if (x´; t´) and (x ; t ) are related by Lorentz transformations (LT) and THE UNITS OF LENGTH AND TIME IN THE TWO IFR`S ARE TO BE THE SAME. McCrea and other SRT-Cardinals mention that this were possible if one makes an "ADJUSTMENT OF MEASUREMENT UNITS".
There are many valid physical, logical and METAPHYSICAL (which SRT actually is!) critical works on SRT, which gain value in view of the present undefendable criticism.

2) The empirical absence of "Thomas precession" means that  gamma (kinematical) = 1 , or that the constant µ in:
x´ = (x - vt)(1 - µv^2) ; t´ = (t - vµx)(1 - µv^2)  equals zero: µ = 0,
which reduces the transformations to : X´ = x - vt ;  t´ = t . However, if mass changes with velocity, even Galilean relativity fails.

There are many good and valid arguments disproving STR. (see my list of over 25 publications on this subject.) I mention here just the unability to define potential energy and, as a consequence, EXTENDED ( i.e. no POINT-Like) SYSTEMS, which makes "relativistic thermodynamics" -in particular- impossible! (see my paper in the Proceedings of the Cologne Workshop). The "Thomas precession" argument is good since it leads to a real dilemma: IF IT EXISTS IT CONTRADICTS  SRT;  IF IT DOESN´T EXIST -ALTHOUGH PREDICTED BY SRT- means that predictions of SRT are absent. If it would exist, it would mean rotation of REAL bodies (like an electron), not just a "geometrical" (i.e. non-physical) rotation of abstract coordinate systems! It is assumed by the "Church of Physics" that the "Thomas precession" were REAL, CUMMULATIVE and IRREVERSIBLE, like the assumed asymmetric ageing of twins! Mass increase with velocity, however, is a REAL, DYNAMICAL EFFECT, but it happens WITHIN ONE SYSTEM, rather than BETWEEN TWO IFR´S.
Be confident and have no fear against the orthodoxy! They are in (very deep) trouble, not we. Brain specialist claimed recently to prove anatomically that Albert E. was a "born genius"! Yesterday I red a journal article about "Einstein´s total solar eclipse": just because the total solar eclipse would be observable from Ulm -Einstein´s birth place....

Best regards,

il tuo George

Subject:         Re: "The shortest argument against STR
   Date:         Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:21:21 +0200
   From:         "George Galeczki" <>
     To:         "umberto bartocci" <>

My dear truth searchers,
Prof. Umberto Bartocci has challenged me to find the shortest  irrefutable
argument against the "special" relativity. Here it is:

THE INVARIANT :     c^2t^2 - x^2 = c^2t´^2 - x´^2 = INV.
IS INCOMPATIBLE  WITH ANY EQUATION OF MOTION:   x = f(t)  , ( c^2t^2 -f(t)^2 =/= INV. ) with the exception of  x = ct ,  therefore  INV. = 0 .


There was, anyway, NO  INVARIANCE  in "special" relativity, ONLY COVARIANCE (Maxwell´s equations, which scramble the electric and magnetic fields, are Lorentz-COVARIANT). The homogenous SCALAR wave equation is INVARIANT under Galilei transforma- tions while the inhomogeneous VECTOR wave equation is COVARIANT.

Please state in concise form your opinion.

Best regards,

George Galeczki

Subject:         Summing-up
   Date:         Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:04:08 +0200
   From:         "George Galeczki" <>
     To:         "Umberto Bartocci" <>

Dear Umberto,
I have finally found a "strict and rigorous mathemathical formulation" of my best and shortest refutation of SRT.
Let  x(µ)^2 = (cT)^2  and  dp(µ)/dT = F(µ)  be the Minkowski INVARIANT and the COVARIANT form of Newton´s equation of motion, with x(µ), T and F(µ) staying for position 4-vector, proper time and 4-force, respectively. THE SOLUTION  xµ = xµ(T) OF THE EQUATION OF MOTION CANNOT SATISFY THE MINKOWSKI INVARIANT SINCE IT CONTAINS THE NON-COVARIANT INITIAL CONDITIONS, TOO.
1/  My dear Umberto, looking back to the last ten days, I would like to express my gratitude for your stimulating, tought provoking and sometimes embarassing comments and statements. It doesn´t matter, actually, whether you are a convinced critic of SRT, or a believer in its logical/mathematical perfection. The end result confirms once more my positive experience with BRAIN STORMING, which I practice for years with my colleague Peter Marquardt.
2/  Newton´s equation of motion, for velocity independent masses and forces depending only on relative distances, is INVARIANT under the 3D Galilei transformations (GT):  r´ = r + V.t  ;  t´ = t . Although invariance fails, unfortunately, for m(v) = g(v).v  (g - the gamma-factor) and for more general forces, Newton´s equation of motion in the form  dp/dt = F  remains valid! The failure of GT means that there is always and everywhere a unique, global, preferred inertial reference frame, which can be approached by successive approximations.
Mass increase with velocity is an absolute effect and can be derived-independently on any kinematical coordinate transformation- from:  dE = v.dp = c^ .
To Franco Selleri: Dear Franco, there cannot be "theories equivalent to SRT", since SRT is wrong. There is a profound, physical difference between theories with and without a preferred reference frame! Mass doesn´t increases due to uniform motion with respect to a fictive, imaginary IFR.

To Neil Munch:  Dear Neil, I hope you will accept that my argument against SRT doesn´t use "shifting assumptions".

To Dennis McCarthy:  Dear Dennis, the necessary group properties require the invariant velocity "c" to be unique. Physics with a "medium dependent kinematics" would be a farce! It may well be that the velocity of dislocations in a solid is upper limited by the sound velocity in that solid ; so what?? I wrote over five years ago an article in "Physics Essays" entitled: "From Einstein to Lorentz and then back to Newton", discussing this matter in connection with the ideas of F. Winterberg.
I apologize before all addressants who found themselves, quite  unexpectedly, witnesses of a tiresome scientific duel. The formidable, sometimes embarassing, power of INTERNET made possible to reach a positive result in 10 days, which in earlier times could have never happen.
                                                                          Best wishes to all of you,


Subject:         relativity
   Date:         Wed, 06 Oct 1999 11:22:53 +0200
   From:         Jean-Jacques GRUFFAT <>

Dear Umberto Bartocci,

  Bernard Guy gave me the mail you sent him and i am very interested with it.

   I think that I can produce strong logical arguments against relativity.
  First you know that the Michelson-Morley's experiment took a great
importance in the birth of relativity. Planck himself said that if this
experiment had not been realised, we should not have the relativity theory
at our disposal. I have however shown that in its classical interpretation,
the conclusion infered from this experiment( length contraction with a
ratio (1-b2).5 in the movement direction of moving bodies) is not the only
one which can explain the Michelson-Morley's experiment: any lengths
modifications with a ratio k in the normal directions to the movement and a ratio k(1-b2).5 in the direction of movement would also agree the negative result of the Michelson- Morley's experiment, whatever he k value.
  Moreover, I have shown that if we assume that a photon is a corpuscle which is not emitted inside the light source but in amedium at rest, the negative result of the Michelson-Morley's experiment is explained without any lengths modifications, and ther is no inconsistencies betwween a corpuscular nature of light and some over observations. These results are to be published in "La Scienza e i vorticci del dubbio"(Cartesio e la Scienza").

  A second argument can be deduced in considering the deduction of
coordinates as done by Lorentz from the Lienard-Wiechert's delayed
potential created by a moving charge q a point A(x, y, z) and at time t.
These coordinates transformation are the same as the ones given by
relativity.But these conclusions are as arbitrary as the ones concerning
the Michelson-Morley's experiment and it is also possible to deduce other
coordinates transformations , within the frame of the same hypothesis. Any of these coordinates transformation is quite compatible with one of the lengths modifications as deduced from the Michelson-Morley' experiment in the general case.  ihave not published this rzewult, but i have a paper about this, an I can send it you.

  Moreover the demonstration of the Lorentz's coordinates transformations leads to a surprising result: the potential is assumed to be propagated with a velocity c in the initial cartesian frame, while the Lorentz's coordinates imply that this propagation is instantaneous in this frame. So, why not assume an instantaneous propagation in the initial cartesian frame? The Lorentz's demonstration would be without signification This would infer that the Newton's hypothesis of instantaneous actions are also true in electromagnetism, and that the Maxwell's equations would have to be modified.

  A third argument is that I think that the Einstein hypothesis of constancy of light velocity in all galilean frames does not also lead to an only one transformation of coordinates. But I am not still very sure of that.

  So I think that we can raise some objections to the foundations of relativity, with a logical point of view.

   With my best wishes

Jean-Jacques Gruffat

158 cours Fauriel
42023 St-Etienne cedex 2


Discussion of Relativity Theory
Answer to Umberto BARTOCCI

  1) Best mathematical argument against Relativity (mathematical contradiction)

   All the presentations of Relativity Theory are not equally mathematically self-consistent, but one may probably find some that have no mathematical contradiction, although the underlying hypotheses may still be discussed (e.g. Lévy-Leblond, 1976).

          The important problems are found when the velocity of the moving frame is not parallel to the x axis. Thomas rotation does not solve the problem : it is not general and is in contradiction with electromagnetism (Mocanu); generally speaking, the problems of the misfit of relativity with electromagnetism (Bartocci and Capria) appears as a major problem.

   In some derivations of the Lorentz transformation (in particular by Einstein), there are contradictions arising from the fact that the coordinates discussed are in the same time that of the photon and that of a general spatio-temporal event (e.g. Baig).

  2) Best argument against Relativity from a general point of view (experimental, logical, theoretical or mathematical)

  Fundamentally, the hypothesis that in the rest frame, space and time may be considered independently of each other is erroneous. As a consequence, is erroneous the assumption that clocks and rods may be envisaged independently of the physical world, that the size of the clocks may be reduced to zero and that the working of rods may be thought of as instantaneous. Basically, this is a philosophical argument which has consequences on a logical and mathematical point of view and on the simplicity of the link of equations with experience.

  The problems set by the three-dimensional Lorentz transformation when the velocity of the moving frame is not parallel to one axis are other consequences of the wrong hypothesis of independency of space and time. In addition to leading to extremely complicated and paradoxical relations (non symmetry and non commutativity of the different movements etc.), this again leads to the major problems found in Thomas rotation, link with electromagnetism and so on (see section 1 above).

          On the whole, I think that one cannot go back to the pre-relativistic situation (with absolute space and time, the aether etc.): the problem of space and time does set. One must define a new formalism, based on a new conception of space and time where these are in a way more linked than in the present formalism (including relativistic one). Therein, the complicated and paradoxical developments of relativity may unravel and some solutions to the problems set by several authors may be found… It is in good part a program of research to which I invite other researchers. In this context part of the relativity formalism may be kept with modifications, and part must be changed to new a formalism (see Guy for a preliminary proposition that must be polished from a mathematical point of view and that must be developped toward electromagnetism).

  Bernard GUY, September 1999

  Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines
  158 Cours Fauriel, 42023 Saint-Etienne Cédex 2, France

33 477- 42 01 64, ~ 42 00 66 (secret.), ~ 42 00 00 (fax) (work) (travel) (home)


Subject:         Re: Questionario...
Date:         Sun, 1 Aug 1999 00:25:49 -0200
From:         Josef Hasslberger <>
To:         umberto bartocci <>

   My dear Bartocci,

thank you for thinking of me and for sending me your survey which you wrote in perfectly understandable - if not perfect - english.

I think that your questions cannot be sensibly answered. Why do I say this? You are attempting to beat special relativity in a field where it is
unbeatable. That theory has drawn on the best minds developing it and
ensuring perfect internal mathematical compatibility. Attempting to beat
special relativity on this plane is a mistake in methodology, even though
mathematics is your speciality - or let's say maybe because mathematics is
your speciality. Please bear with me although I am not a mathematician and not even a recognized scientist, presuming to tell you what method to adopt.

If you want to bring down special (or general) relativity you should not
look for internal contradictions. You must search for external
contradictions, incompatibilities with phisical reality and with logics. I
know that they have already taken this into account and have in some way
made us believe that the theory cannot be logically understood. But that,
if we want to use a good english term, is bull shit.

There is nothing in this universe which may not be understood by a person
which a reasonably sharp mind and a minimum of preparation. All those
arguments about the arcane nature of the theory have been put up only in
order to prevent it's being taken apart by logical arguments.

The internal logical contradictions you are searching for, maybe are not
even there, but that is not important. The crux lays much deeper. There
simply is no logical basis!

If a theory is not accessible to intuitive and logical argumentation, it is
not worth to even take into consideration. You could also not agree with me on this point, because your professional life is that of a mathematician.
You can use mathematics to try and "disprove" special relativity but I
would think that a better approach would be that of taking just those parts
of special relativity that are counterintuitive and to say: "Stop, one
cannot reason like this".

Unfortunately such a point of view does not seem to be "in" these days. But nevertheless, the only way I see in which the impasse created by relativity may be overcome is to affirm the principle that everything must be understandable. If it is not, it is not acceptable.

I know you didn't like my latest article so much (Action at a Distance - because not based firmly on facts, but tell me: what are the facts that this famous relativity is based on? At least what I affirm is not against all possibility of logical immagination, as is

To make it short, in order to overcome relativity, I think one must return
to the basic condition of intuibility of models. Nothing in this universe,
I believe, is outside of this parameter, regardless of what the adherents
of relativity might say.

Excuse my venting my thoughts in a rather non-scientific way

 - yours

Josef H.


Subject:         Re: Try this to read my comments
   Date:         Wed, 13 Oct 99 00:49:58 -0000
   From:         Al Kelly <>
     To:         "umberto bartocci" <>

Hi Umberto,
Heree are my comments in text and you can certaiinly read this. Will this suit your requirements?
Al Kelly

       Comments on Prof. Umberto Bartocci’s Paper on S.R.

I have read your paper with great interest. I comment as follows:

1. I agree that, until now, there has not been a fair balanced debate concerning the veracity or falsity of Special Relativity. All we get are two armies lined up against each other. There is no genuine debate and exchange of ideas. The debate is somewhat like that of a pair of drunks, who do not listen to each other. Any riposte is good enough, just to counter the point of the other side. I compliment you on the first attempt at a proper debate.
My comments will probably be different from other commentators, because I am an engineer, and will concentrate on the 'practical' problems with relativity theory, rather than debate the bottomless morass of the 'theory'. I shall mention items that are never (or very rarely ever) mentioned by adherents of S.R. theory. This is a great irritant to those who question that Theory. With your idea, both sides of the argument should be fairly stated. That would be a welcome innovation.

2  It is rarely mentioned that Einstein, in his very first 1905 paper (in Annalen der Physik Vol 17, on pages 904 & 905), said that straight line motion was not solely used, but motion in a polygonal shape, and also in a circuit. Many authors claim that one cannot mention S.R. in relation to motion in a circuit. They pontificate that Œonly straight line uniform motion¹ can be discussed. They demand that no circular motion is allowed. You cover this important point, but why not quote Einstein on that? Here is what Einstein wrote (Annalen Der Physik 1905, Vol 17, pages 904-5) : ²From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronise, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by 1/2 tv*2/c*2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent that this result holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv*2/c*2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions².
You have a good view on all that, but it would be worth while spelling out exactly what Einstein said, and its implications.

3. Consider further what Einstein said in his first 1905 paper. Discussing firstly the dimensions of an object, which was moving in the direction of the x axis, he said that ²the X dimension appears shortened² by the factor gamma and continued ³the greater the value of gamma the greater the shortening². Having thus examined the appearance of moving objects, as observed by an observer at rest, Einstein continues:³ It is clear that the same results hold good of bodies at rest in the 'stationary¹ system, viewed from a system in uniform motion². The reciprocal effect is recorded here by Einstein. So far, so good. Of course, this raises the question as to how the dimensions of both objects could be relatively shortened at the same time, just because the two objects were in relative motion. We shall leave this for the moment, and discuss the other aspect of the problem, which has raised major controversy over the past 90 years. Einstein goes on to discuss time and he concludes that a travelling clock is perceived to run slow viz: t = gamma t¹. Strangely, he does not, at this juncture, refer to the reverse situation, even though he had earlier done so on the same page in the English edition (previous page 903 in the original German) when he discussed dimensions. Why is this fact never mentioned? What was left unsaid was that, to an observer travelling with the moving clock, the 'stationary¹ clock would also appear to run slow. Instead, he had laid the foundations for the subsequent twin controversy. Nobody ever mentions that Einstein later actually wrote that the time slowing was vice versa (he did not this in the 1905 paper, even though he applied the reverse situation to 'distance'). In his 1922 book ³The Meaning of Relativity² he specifically says it; 'mutatis mutandi' is the expression he used, and you being Italian will understand that! This was written after he had launched General Relativity. It is interesting that very few texts refer to Einstein¹s 1905 statement, and none to his 1922 statement, when discussing the twin paradox. Invariably, the discussion centres around accelerations and decelerations, cylindrical Universes, jumping Inertial Frames, or steady motion all along one straight line path. Several authors discuss this reverse situation (that Einstein omitted to mention in his 1905 paper); Why did Einstein not say in 1905 that according to the travelled clock, the stationary clock would have gone slow by the same amount? Indeed, Einstein¹s own discussion on dimensions covered the reverse situation for dimensions, but he did not do this not for time and clocks. Why? Here is where, in his later book "The Meaning of Relativity" (Chapman & Hall, London,1922, p. 35), Einstein did record the reverse situation, for both dimensions and time, (referring to a stationary system K, and a moving one K¹): the clock goes slower than if it were at rest relatively to K¹. These two consequences, which hold, mutatis mutandi, for every system of reference, form the physical content, free from convention, of the Lorentz transformation. In the intervening 77 years, I did not find a single reference to this clear statement that the effect is vice versa. It was not mentioned in the famous debate between Dingle and Irishman McCrea; the latter is still alive (I think, at about 93 years of age). Nobody dug up that pertinent fact.

4.  I do not agree with your implication that McCrea answered Dingle satisfactorily. I never met anyone, who had read Dingle¹s book and was satisfied with McCrea's response!! This is simply because nobody would publish Dingle's reply to McCrea. Because Dingle was prevented from making a further response, many people thought that McCrea had won the debate! Dingle had to publish a book to get his say. You have read the book "Science at the Crossroads" by Dingle (Martin Bryan & O'Keeffe, London; 1972) where he answered McCrea (because no journal would print his response to McCrea, we can then hardly give McCrea the victory?). I also challenge you to give a fair run to Dingle and his book. He was the author of "Relativity for All" (Methuen, 1922), and of "The Special Theory of Relativity" (Menthuen, 1940) which was a standard textbook in English and American Universities in 4 editions well into the 1970's; that is for over 30 years. He was no small fry, no outsider, and had discussed the whole theory in detail with Einstein and all the other famous physicists of the time. Tolman actually names an equation after Dingle in his book "Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology". In 1959, however, like St Paul on the road to Damascus, Dingle realised that there was a snag. What is it, he asked, in Einstein's theory, that determines which of 2 clocks, relatively moving uniformly, lags behind the other? Over a period of 13 years he sought a straight answer to this simple query in vain. McCrea gave an astonishing final reply. He said that Einstein had never compared the rates of two relatively moving clocks. "If we thus say that, according to relativity theory, a moving clock appears to go slow, then we are not making a symmetric comparison of one single clock with another single clock". But, that is precisely what Einstein did in his first relativity 1905 paper and his 1922 book; the latter referred to 'mutatis mutandi" for this situation. McCrea was clearly trying to wriggle out of the problem, by changing what Einstein said. How many people will swallow that excuse? Dingle penned the Encyclopaedia Britannica statements on Relativity; he was that renowned. Reading many papers, you would think that he was an isolated crank. In my opinion, anyone who has not read and studied Dingle's book is not qualified to pontificate on this subject.

5.  Even more of an embarrassment is the completely incorrect and bizarre bluff of Einstein in Naturwissenschaften (6th year, Heft 48, page 697-712, 1918) concerning the Twin Paradox. I challenge you to quote this nonsense and debunk it! Einstein was challenged concerning the one-sided aging of the twins, who are in relative motion. He postulated, in an article in Naturwissenschaften, that the speeding up of a moving clock in the deceleration/acceleration phase was exactly twice the slowing down that is occasioned in the steady-speed state. This is quoted in translation in Dingle¹s book (p. 194). In a supposed discussion between a skeptic and a relativist, the skeptic raises the paradox of the two clocks (U1 and U2), each supposed to be running slower than the other. The supposed 'proof¹ of one-sided aging has been buried in the archives. It is surely another huge embarrassment to adherents of Relativity Theory. I have never seen it even partially quoted in the past 20 years, since Dingle quoted it (pages 192-201 of his book ³Science at the Crossroads", nor in the previous 50 years. Why, oh why? Einstein actually pretends that the whole paradox is explained by the following statement (referring to the acceleration and deceleration phase as causing 'advancement' or lessening of age):
"Calculation shows that the consequent advancement amounts to exactly twice as much as the retardation during stages 2 and 4. This completely clears up the paradox which you have propounded." (page 669 Columns 1 & 2 of Natürwissenschaften).
Phases 2 and 4 are the steady uniform motion phases going out and then back. I love the phrase ‘calculation shows’. What calculation? Be wary of any such evasive statement. Young’s "University Physics" on the Twin Paradox says "Careful analysis shows", but carefully avoids saying how this is done!
Let us consider this question. On the journey of a twin, who goes off, and then turns around and comes back again, the acceleration phase can be of any duration and magnitude, and the deceleration phase can be likewise; also the return journey could have entirely different acceleration and deceleration from the outward journey. So, we cannot say that the magnitude of any effect would exactly balance out the slowing that is supposed to happen during the (arbitrarily chosen) steady-state phase. As an example, we could have the steady state phases going out and back each of duration 1000 years, while the deceleration/acceleration, which reverses the motion, could take 1/100 second. How could the slowing that took place over 2000 years be magically exactly balanced by a quickening that takes place in our arbitrarily chosen 1/100 second! An alternative example could have the steady state out-and-back taking 1/100 second, and the acceleration and deceleration part taking 1000 years. Also, the outward acceleration and deceleration could be 10,000 times greater (or less) than those on the return journey!
It is arrant nonsense to suggest that the two always balance exactly, no matter what the duration of the steady state phase, or the acceleration phases. What a blatant crooked swindle! But, this must be quoted when debating this paradox. Why pretend that Einstein did not say that? I dare any proponent of S.R to mention this statement by Einstein. He was challenged to explain the paradox, and this was his considered published reply (after a 7 year delay from when it was mentioned by Langevin). He occluded the supposed balancing of the steady state, and the acceleration & deceleration phases, with convoluted applications of imaginary gravitational fields acting upon the twins!
You imply that a correct 'explanation' is in almost all relativity textbooks. I have, so far, collected 54 different so-called 'explanations' (up to Summer 1999), published in mainstream physics journals  (all suitably peer reviewed!) and textbooks, and each implies that most of the others are wrong!!! These so-called explanations are broken down as follows: 8 say it is inexplicable, and causes a huge problem for Relativity (among these is Essen the inventor of the cesium clock); 4 say the differential aging is all caused solely during the acceleration & deceleration phases (this includes Langevin, Bondi, Rindler and a standard 1990's textbook); 9 say the acceleration has nothing whatever to do with the explanation; 3 say that General Relativity has nothing to do with the explanation; 4 say that General Relativity gives the sole explanation; 2 say jumping from one Inertial Frame to another explains the paradox. Other more exotic and bizarre explanations make up the rest. So, it as all very simple, and the correct explanation is to be seen in every standard text? Like hell it is!
Møller's widely used text "The Theory of Relativity" had to admit that its original explanation was not correct. In later editions it concocts a mass that suddenly goes from + to - for a twin! That must be an interesting experience!  ŒBizarre¹ is the word for that.
Umberto Bartocci has yet another explanation (if this has been published, it can be counted as number 55) viz: that the path of one of the clocks is 'geodesic, the other definitively not". He claims that "the 'postulate of relativity' either special or general, never asserts that supposed complete symmetry between the two clocks". I claim that Einstein said just that in his 1922 book (see above). Also, in relation to this paradox why not also quote another simple objection; if the twins never met again, and just start by passing each other at high speed and exchange photographs, and after 30 years of each others own recorded 'time' take another photograph and post that to the other twin?. This is the simple set-up that is very carefully avoided in the debate. Or what of the "Peter would be dead and Paul alive on the one hand, while Paul would be dead and Peter alive on the other hand" problem set by Lovejoy in 1931. We have Peter both dead and alive, and also Paul both dead and alive! Why, oh why, do so many adherents of S.R. adopt a lofty condescending attitude on this problem, as if everyone else was stupid, and ‘dead from the neck up’?

6.  In relation to the Sagnac experiment, we do not need to talk about infinities. Just make the disc big (the Michelson & Gale disc is 16,000,000 m in diameter, and that is fairly big). When the disc is of a size where the best measuring instruments will not show any difference from a straight line direction, then, at such a low speed (about 13 m/s rim speed on a typical Sagnac small disc test) how can S.R explain such a huge effect (which is 10,000,000 times the S.R. forecast effect). It is just not good enough to say that S.R. does not apply, because Sagnac is circular motion, and try to leave the matter there, as if that were sufficient explanation; we must explain the matter!! See the earlier discussion above on Einstein's statement that S.R. applies to motion in a circuit, exactly as in the Sagnac test. If we all think that the Sagnac effect is simply explained, then why the 21 different attempted explanations given in Hasselbach & Nicklaus? Reading them is amusing. And, it is all supposed to be very clear, and simple. It sure is not! To give a balanced debate this view must be aired. Listen to Hasselbach & Nicklaus (1993):
"Various authors have derived the Sagnac phase shift in a number of ways: by optical analogy, general relativity considerations, special relativity analyses, the Doppler effect on moving media in an inertial frame, a classical kinematic derivation, a dynamical analysis in a noninertial frame, by analogy with the Aharonov-Bohm effect, by extension of the hypothesis of locality, by adiabatic invariance, using other concepts, and in other ways".
Look here, there is a problem for S.R in the Sagnac effect. There is no
point is clouding the issue with big words or equations! Why not state the glaringly simple derivation using classical ideas? I challenge you to state this (say the opposite if you wish to give your balanced debate). This is covered in Monographs 1 and 2 of the Inst. Engrs Ireland (see references).The light moves relative to the laboratory in a table-top Sagnac test. To the observer aboard the disc the light goes at speeds of c±v in the opposing directions. R Monti derived the same ideas independently in his Phys. Essays article, at about the same time.
The GPS synchronisation system uses the Sagnac correction every day. But, it pretends that this is a 'relativistic' correction. It is nothing of the sort. The President of the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures in Paris  (which sets the rules for these synchronisation) wrote to me and said  "You are right in stating that the Sagnac effect is not relativistic"!!! I can send you a copy of the letter if you wish. This is despite the fact thast their official documentation defines it as 'relativistic'!! That sure is some huge admission. See Monograph No 4 of the Inst of Engs of Ireland 1998 "Rules for Einstein-Synchronisation of Clocks Challenged". This scheme is one big pretence. There is no relative motion between two clock stations that are sending signals to synchronise with each other; how then can we  use the word 'relativistic' to the fact that the signal goes at a different speed East and West around the globe?? The 'swindle' is to pretend that the speed of light aboard the spinning Earth is c. They have no compunction in applying their 'relativistic' analysis to the spinning Earth (despite the fact that others say you cannot use it in those circumstances). Having pretended that the  speed is c, they then alter the time aboard the Earth by exactly the Sagnac amount. This is just as altering the time in the famous 'rod-clock' thought experiment in every basic physics text on relativity (by gamma). If you claim that  the speed of light must be 'c' aboard the moving object, then you must get the time altered by precisely the amount needed to correct the difference in the speed of light from the figure 'c'. Is that clear? I am in corresondence with those authorities on that at the moment. The usual verbal response that "well, S.R. fits so many things that you would have to disprove all those, before I will listen to you". You see, to any sensible reader of all this debate, there is never a fair quoting of the contra arguments. It is like the defence of a 'religion' with 'mysteries' that we cannot understand!!

7.  My paper on Hafele & Keating (Monograph No 3 of the Inst. Engs Ireland) shows that those tests meant nothing. However, and ironically, clocks that are sent off at speed actually slow down, in proportion to their absolute speed with reference to outer space, that travels with the Earth.
No reference to the evidence in favour of this is ever given. It is in Monograph No 4of the inst Engrs Ireland.

8.  Some further comments:
"All the other fellows do not look from the facts to the theory, but from the theory to the facts; they cannot extricate themselves from a once accepted conceptual net, but only flop around in it in a grotesque way" -
Einstein writing to Schrödinger in 1935. Let us give precedence to the facts of the tests mentioned above.

Would you dare to mention any of the detailed arguments demolishing S.R. from the 1000 page book ³Electromagnetics² by Irishman A O¹Rahilly (1938) ?

The philosopher Sir Karl Popper in ³The Logic of Scientific Discovery² said that one test can demolish a beautiful theory, but no number of tests can ever prove a theory.

Here is why the adherents of S.R. stick to their guns:
"The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions is proven wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure appears to be impossible." A. Einstein.
Dingle H Science at the Crossroads (Martin Brian & O'Keeffe, London) 1972
Einstein A Natürwissenschaften 6th Year Heft 48 697-702
Kelly A.G. Monographs No's 1 (1995) to 6 (1998); copies free from the Institution of Engineers, 22 Clyde Rod, DUBLIN 4. Ireland.
Einstein A. Ann der Physik Vol 17, 891-921, 1905
Einstein A. The Principle of Relativity (Dover, London) 1952
Einstein A. The Meaning of Relativity (Chapman & Hall Methuen, London) 1922
Langevin P.  Scientia 31-54, 1911
Monti R. Phys. Ess. 9, No 2, 238-60, 1996
O¹Rahilly A. Electromagnetics (Long man Green; London) 1938
Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Hutcihinson; London) 1972.
Tolman R. C. Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology (Oxford Unit, Pry.) 1934
Miller C. The Theory of Relativity (Clarendon Pry. Oxford) 1952
Young H. University Physics (Addison  Wesley, Reading Mass.) 1992
Well, Umberto, all the above might be useful to you together with all the other submissions that you will receive to your stimulating circular. That was a great idea, and congratulations on doing that. I apologise if the tone of this note is somewhat heated in certain places. It is so, because I am Irish, and we have a rather excitable Latin nature!! It is angry, not with you, but with the unsatisfactory position in physics to-day; you gave me the opportunity to let off some steam!


Al Kelly


Subject:         Some thoughts
   Date:         Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:21:52 EDT


The recent voluminous e-mailings concerning the best argument against special relativity (SR) have clearly indicated a problem in our common attempts to come up with something better.  If we try to come up with theoretical arguments to show how special relativity is wrong, we will lose.  SR has been studied and celebrated for generations now.  If there was a theoretical flaw it would have been found long ago.  The generations past were very intellegent, as are many in today's physics establishment.

Several points have been raised which I wish to comment on:


Point 1.  The problem with George's challenge to SRT.

Special relativity is certainly correct - in the mathematical sense.  Special relativity is, in essense, a theory about point like events in a four space.
With the Lorentz transformations it is straight forward to show how any two separated events obey a condition where:

s^2 = dx*dx + dy*dy + dz*dz - cdt*cdt

is an invariant quantity, such that when the Lorentz transformation is applied, and one goes to a primed coordiate system, one gets:

s'^2 = dx'*dx' + dy'*dy' + dz'*dz' - cdt'*cdt' = s^2.  (1)

In the above expressions, dx (dy, dz) is the spatial separation of the two events in the x (y, z) direction, and dt is the temporal separation of the two events.  The unprimed coordinates are evaluated in one inertial frame, while the primed coordinates are evaluated in a second inertial frame moving at speed v with respect to the first.
Since it can be straight forwardly shown that the above equation (1) follows for finite differentials, we can see that for any instantaneous snapshot of any arbitrary motion the invariant holds.  Thus, there is no problem with special relativity handling an arbitrary motion x = f(t), as we can analyze it in terms of individual events (values of x and t) and apply the Lorentz transformation to analyse it from any other frame, and we are guaranteed that the invariant stays invariant. This method of attempting to disprove SR only serves to indicate to the establishment that we don't know what we're talking about.
I think the root of the problem is in what one means by "invariant".  The confusion arises because of the fact that light behaves uniquely within the special theory.  For light we have: x = ct, and therefore x^2 - c^2t^2 = 0.  And when the transformation is made we also have x' = ct', or x'^2 - c^2t'^2 = 0.  This can lead to the confusion that the invariance of the four vector is related to motion of a photon, since for the motion of the photon the quantity x^2 - c^2t^2 = 0 is invariant between reference frames. Once this confusion is made, one may try to evaluate this "invariant" for particles moving at speeds less than c and one does indeed find that it is not an invariant quantity.  If we have x = vt for a baseball moving in drag free space, we will not get an invariant if we form the quantity x^2 - c^2t^2 at different times.  The problem here is that we are no longer concerning ourselves with two separated events in four space, and comparing their four vector separations in two different reference frames.  Instead we are looking at separate event separations and comparing them. As a concrete example, consider our baseball at a position x = 1 mile, t = 1 hour.  What we mean by this event is actually the separation of two events, with the second event being the origin at x = 0, t = 0.  If we evaluate the quantity x^2 - c^2t^2 we will get some s^2, and if we use the Lorentz transformation and evaluate x'^2 - c^2t'^2 from the other frame we will again get s^2.  That's the invariant quantity.  But if we now consider the case where x = 10 miles, t = 10 hours, we get a new (not invariant) value for s^2!  But the point is that this new value of s^2 will be the same in the second frame.  It's invariant from frame to frame, it's not invariant from event to event.  That's what special relativity is all about.  Relativity does not stipulate that the four vector for the two different cases must be the same.  Of course not.  It would be identical to saying that a meter stick and a yard stick must have the same length.  (There we also have two events for each case. Case one has events at x = 0, t = 0 and x = 1 meter, t = 0.  Case two has events at x = 0, t = 0 and x = 1 yard, t = 0.  Here the invariant quantites are 1 meter in the first case and 1 yard in the second.  And a meter doesn't equal a yard, much to the dismay of much of the US population!). Again the point of confusion I see in George's work stems from the fact that if light is used, one does get an invariant of 0 for its entire spectrum (pun intended) of positions and times throughout its motion.  But that is not what is meant by four vector invariance.


Point 2.  Sherwin's Experiment.

I agree with Tom concerning the problem that Sherwin's result poses for Lorentz.  In discussing this matter with Ron at the most recent NPA meeting, Ron made the point that he feels that the atoms in Sherwin's rotating apparatus can adjust to their equilibrium position at speeds faster than the speed of sound.  Once Ron allows this to happen one can indeed get a null result from within the Lorentzian theory.  But my point of view is more in line with Sherwin's.  Why should the adjustment of position within the moving springs occur faster than the speed of sound?  The adjustments of positions always occur at the speed of sound in every other experiment.  For this reason I think we must doubt length contraction in the Lorentzian sense.

Fortunately it is possible to modify the Lorentz theory to have time dilation alone, without a length contraction.  If one does so, the only experiment that can't be readily handled is that of Michelson Morley, and similar such tests.  I have proposed (Physics Essays, vol.7, no.4, 1994) that the Michelson Morley null result occurs as a result of the fact that the mirrors enforce null conditions on the etherial oscillations, and when you move the null condition you enforce the null result.


Point 3. Gamma*m*v.

There was again some discussion about whether we should consider mass to increase in the momentum expression, or if the velocity should be allowed to go to greater than c.  As for me, rather than forcing nature to have two terms in the momentum, mass and velocity, and arguing about which must change from the classical form, I believe we should have three terms, gamma, m, and v each contributing.  Clearly gamma is a function of v, so really what I am arguing for is simply a more complicated form for the momentum than p = mv.  I don't see why we waste all this time debating what's going on.  p = gamma*m*v.  That's all.  m is m.  v is v.  And gamma is gamma.  It's just that p doesn't equal mv.  Why must we insist that it does?


Point 4.  The needed experimental test.

Not mentioned in the voluminous exchange is the one set of experiments which clearly show that relativity is wrong.  Recently these tests have come under the name of "quantum teleportation", but earlier they were known as tests of Bell's theorem.  In those experiments quantum phenomena clearly lead to results of experiments where two spatially separated detectors affect the results in a way violating causality if relativity is correct.  If a modified Lorentzian theory is deemed correct, causality can be maintained.  Some orthodox physicists recognize this problem.  This set of experiments is, without doubt in my opinion, the Achilles heel of special relativity.

My fellow scholars, I submit to you that it is this set of experiments that will lead to the downfall of the special theory.  The relevant references are:

Theory - J.S. Bell, Physics (NY) 1, 195, 1965.  Note that this journal is
very hard to find.  Fortunately the paper can be found within Bell's
delightful and easily obtainable book "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics" which is readily available in many fine bookstores.

Experiment - A. Aspect, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 49, 1804 (1982).

Really folks - experimental proof that special relativity is wrong!  And the
experiment blessed even by the most orthodox journal in all of physics.  This is the path to overthrowing relativity.

With best regards to all,

Del Larson

Subject:         Re: Some thoughts
   Date:         Mon, 25 Oct 1999 09:54:47 +0200 (MET DST)
   From:         Franco Selleri <>

Dear Del Larson,

        I am sorry not to know you, but one thing I know, that
your argument concerning the EPR paradox is not correct. No
experiment performed on the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen
correlations has ever produced any evidence against either
local realism or the Lorentz interpretation of Special
Relativity. Bell's inequality has never been checked
        Are you shocked? If you are it is only because
you never paid any attention to the so called loopholes.
Additional assumptions have been made, starting with the
1969 CHSH paper in PRL, and inequalities different from
and stronger than the original Bell inequality have been
obtained. Also here, as it happens often nowadays, the
orthodox people play a dirty game: they try to make people
forget about the additional assumptions. I can see that
with you they succeeded, Del Larson.  In the case of the
Orsay experiments (Aspect et al.) the interval within
which the linear combination of correlation functions
must lie has length 1 according to the weak inequality
(deduced from local realism alone), but length less than 0.03
for the strong inequality (deduced with the essential
help of untestable additional assumptions). Experimentally
the STRONG inequality was found to be violated, but the weak
one is on safe ground by a wide margin.
        The whole story is told in detail in a book which
I recently co-authored with Alexander Afriat: THE EINSTEIN,
        Best regards to all of you,
                                        Franco Selleri

Subject:         Minkowski, Sherwin, EPR & more tests
   Date:         Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:12:11 EST
     To:,, ...

To all,

I have again several comments on the ongoing discussions.


It is clear to me that the problem in your argument is purely conceptual.
You are in essense showing that a series of events, all evaluated within the same frame, do not satisfy the Minkowski invariant.  The problem is that the Minkowski invariant is a quantity that is invariant between pairs of events each analyzed in different frames, not a series of events within the same frame.
That is, if I am understanding your arguments, you are comparing x^2 - c^2t^2 at different times within a single frame, while the Minkowski invariant is meant to compare the quantities x^2 - c^2t^2 and x'^2 - c^2t'^2 at a single time, but in two different frames.  For the latter case, the Lorentz transformation does indeed lead to an invariant quantity after the comparison.  For the former case you are indeed correct that it is not invariant.  But you are incorrect in saying that special relativity says that the former case should be invariant.  Special relativity says no such thing.

I also note in your writings that you state that the relative velocity
between two frames S and S' is not reciprocal.  This statement is also
incorrect.  I have worked this out in detail, and have no doubt that the
velocity is reciprocal.  Once length contraction, time dilation, and the
simultaneity alterations are made, observers agree that their velocities are


Re Sherwin:

The discussion I had with Ron regarding Sherwin's experiment ended by my pointing out that if one does a Lorentzian analysis of the experiment one does indeed get what Ron says.  Specifically:

Special relativity predicts no observable effect - the weight goes around in a circle.  Special relativity goes on to say that if you go to a moving frame, the weight will now go around in an ellipse.  Special relativity shows that there are mass increases, length contractions, and time dilations that go along with the transfer to that frame, but that all is in equilibrium.  As is well known, a Lorentzian analysis including all of these factors gives the same result as special relativity.  At the conference Ron and I agreed on all of this.  But my point to him was that in order to get the elliptical motion, the length contraction of the spring must occur in a way faster than the speed of sound.  At the speed of light perhaps.  Then the equilibrium is there for the elliptical motion, including all of the mass increase, time dilation and length contraction effects.  But if the length contraction occurs at the speed of sound, then one should expect a non-null result.

I beleive that Sherwin was well aware of all of this, and that the central
point of his argument was that the length change should not occur faster than the speed of sound.  In fact he emphasized that point in his paper.  In the end, Ron is right that if the length change is not limited by the speed of sound, that Lorentz predicts no effect.  But I side with Sherwin's original analysis.  If Lorentz was right, there should have been an effect for Sherwin to see.  Unless the sun or earth is at rest with respect to the ether, which would be a real coincidence.

Re Length contraction:

I'd be interested to see how a theory without a length contraction can handle Michelson Morley without doing something about the velocity of light between the mirrors.  The original experiment was of course designed based on the assumption of no length contraction, and it quite clearly (and simply) leads to a prediction of an effect.  If you have light speed c in a preferred frame, and no length contraction, I don't see how you can explain Michelson and Morley.

Re Establishment:

You are correct that much of the establishment has brushed off the EPR tests by saying that no information is transmitted, so there is no problem.  But a persistent minority of the establishment realizes that there is indeed a profound problem.  Indeed, it was Einstein himself (along with Podolski and Rosen) who brought this matter out in the first place.  Further, whenever I have discussions with establishment physicists about this they usually mindlessly state what you say, but after minimal discussion with me they come to understand that this is not so easy to dismiss.  Usually it ends with them saying "I'm not that smart", that is, they give up.  I have found almost all establishment physicists to be quite intellegent, honest, and hardworking.
The problem is that this stuff is rather weird to think about and they just
grab the first handy argument they can find to stop discussing this entire
matter with us "loonies".  And I can see why.  Generally, in the discussions of what is wrong with relativity, the special relativity opponent simply misses the point.  And it takes a long time, generally, to find out why the opponent is wrong.  But after days of thought one generally (90% or more) finds that the opponent is wrong.  It takes that long because the opponent is generally quite intelligent too, and has worked on this for quite some time.
Take the case we are arguing with George here.  (Who is doing quite complex, intelligent things.) It is the confusion of the concepts that leads to this entire discussion, and it is going on for quite some time.  So instead of all that effort, the establishment just grabs the first handy argument and dismisses the opponent.  But in the case of EPR, most establishment physicists do agree there is something strange going on they don't understand.  I still view this as the Achilles heal of the intellectual giant that is the Special Theory.  We should all whack away at that heal!


I am puzzled in many ways by your response.  First, I would not at all be surprized if "the Lorentz interpretation of Special Relativity" was not
harmed by the EPR tests of Aspect et al., indeed in some sense that is my point!  But of course your phrase "the Lorentz interpretation of Special Relativity" is itself highly objectionable to me, since Lorentz did his work before Einstein, and Lorentz never interpretted special relativity in any way.  Rather, it is the Lorentz theory which special relativity re-interpretted.  But if we must bow to the prevailing winds of giving Einstein credit for every physical science advance, then the Lorentz theory might be called "the Lorentz interpretation of Special Relativity".  I believe that the EPR tests do indeed support the Lorentz theory over that of Einstein, so perhaps your response to me is merely to agree with that point.

A second reason why I am puzzled is that I am unfamiliar with the strong and weak Bell's inequalities, and I have never learned anything about them.  I have been studying Bell's original paper on the matter, and from what I understand so far it seems quite clear and to the point.  When I was a professor at UCLA I attended Bell's talk for the Schwinger symposium, and Bell never got into any "strong" and "weak" conditions.  Rather, with the experiments only recently completed, he was quite clear that the experiments did indeed call into question relativity.  He consistently made the point that the Lorentz theory was perfectly in step with the EPR tests, but the special relativity was not.  Do you differ with such a statement?  If so, how?

A third reason for my puzzlement is that by mentioning things in terms of only "strong" and "weak" I have no idea what you are referring to.  If it is possible, could you please sketch some of the "assumptions" that Bell does or does not make?  Again, his 6 page work seems quite clear and to the point to me.  Why would one require an entire book to cover this topic, when the EPR and Bell papers are so short?  Could you send quick, to-the-point arguments why they are wrong?


The EPR paper set up an experiment wherein, if relativity is correct, certain quantum mechanical experiments would lead to results showing that quantum mechanics is wrong.  Essentially, relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible.  For this reason, the EPR tests show whether it is quantum mechanics or special relativity that is correct.  When the tests were done, it was quantum mechanics that prevailed.  Hence, this set of experiments shows that relativity is wrong.  For this reason it is highly relevant in any discussion of relativity to discuss EPR experiments.

This is unless one wants to set aside all experiments and make things a
strictly theoretical discussion.  But, I support Umberto's position that,
from a mathematical (and therefore theoretical) sense, special relativity is completely consistent and correct.  Arguing that point merely shows a
misunderstanding of the theory.

Only in the experimental realm can we hope to overthrow special relativity.
And the EPR experiments are a set of experiments where relativity is
especially vulnerable.


In the past I have proposed two additional experimental tests of the special theory, beyond the EPR tests:

1) An amplitude equivalent of the Michelson Morley test.

In one of my previous positions I worked at the Center for Research in
Electro Optics and Lasers in Orlando Florida.  There they have experts in making femto second lasers.  These ultrashort pulses of light could be put through a Michelson Morley like apparatus and recombined.  If sent through a nonlinear doubling crystal, a very fine determination can be made whether there is a differential velocity as the earth rotates during the day.
Despite the rather obvious benefits of doing this experiment (for about
$50,000) the NSF rejected it (I earned two F's and a D as I recall - only 3
A's get funded), since I was audacious enough to say that one might get a non-null result.  (The reviewers asked why money should be wasted on this when relativity is so well proven already.)  In hindsight I should have pitched the thing as showing further support for Einstein's remarkable theory.  I'm guessing the reviews would have been much better.

2) Searching for a length contraction using rail guns.

As I understand it, rail guns are capable of making projectiles reach quite high velocities.  If one could shoot an ultra short laser pulse across the rapidly moving particle, it may be possible to get a very accurate length of the moving object from its shadow.  I've never run the numbers, but in principle one could look for a real measurement of length contraction in this way.  To be certain, one should also decelerate the projectile after the experiment to be sure that a physical deformation had not occurred.  I never followed up on this experiment with a proposal, since it appeared to me that achieving a high enough velocity to get a noticable length contraction would be very hard.  I imagine that decelerating the object would be even more difficult.  That, and test 1 above is clearly doable.

Note that test 1 may still leave a null result even if there is an ether with
no length contraction.  Since the mirrors enforce a condition where phase velocity tests (traditional Michelson Morley tests) give a null result, and do so for all frequencies, the group velocity must also be c with respect to the mirrors.  For that reason, test 1 only tests to see of there is a different envelope velocity than that of the underlying carrier wave.  It is possible, and should be tested.  But the point is that test 1 can experimentally show relativity is wrong if an non-null result is obtained, it just can't say too much new if the test comes back with a null result.

With sincere and best regards to all,

Del Larson


Assisi, 14.10.1999

   Dear prof. Bartocci,
cerco di riassumere qui il mio personale punto di vista relativo alle domande del suo questionario.
   Credo di essermi convinto che esiste una differenza non trascurabile tra logica e matematica. In particolare in Fisica puo’ esistere una teoria autocontraddittoria senza che cio’ sia manifesto a livello matematico. Questo è possibile in quanto la logica è allacciata al ‘‘tutto" ("il reale è razionale" direbbe Hegel), e da cartesiano ammetto che non si può toccare una parte senza interagire con il resto. Basterebbe pensare al peso che il principio di ragion sufficiente esercita su una teoria fisica pur senza toccarne minimamente il formalismo matematico.

   La matematica invece, se vista come un linguaggio (al riparo della mathesis universalis di Cartesio, che è appunto quella "logica primordiale" contenente «i primi rudimenti della ragione umana»), non permette di asserire o di negare la plausibilità fisico-logico-filosofica di una teoria o "sub-teoria" (direbbe Feynman parafrasando Russell, in "The Character of Physical Law", «I matematici trattano solo della struttura del ragionamento, e non si interessano veramente di quello di cui stanno parlando. Non devono neppure sapere quello di cui stanno parlando, o, come essi dicono, se quello di cui parlano è vero»). Illuminante sotto questo aspetto è il cosiddetto "paradosso di Kripgenstein" sull’impossibilità epistemica di cogliere la semantica da un gruppo di regole o tormalismi (non mi dilungo su questo punto ma spero di fare un articolo al riguardo prima o poi). Sarebbe sufficiente, d’altra parte, riflettere sui limiti intrinseci che il teorema di Godel pone alla stessa matematica. Sarebbe più opportuno dunque formulare la domanda del suo questionario sull’autocontraddittorietà (come ho fatto io al convegno di Bologna) piuttosto che su "mathematical contradictions".
   Il nocciolo della questione è che la matematica sembra essere costituita da una ragnatela a "maglie larghe" - facilmente "bypassabili" o modellabili - mentre la geometria e la fisica hanno un "reticolato" più fitto e sottile, sempre sovraordinato dallo logica ("Una dimostrazione conseguita per via analitica ci garantisce senz’altro della validità di una affermazione, ma non sempre del suo profondo ‘‘perché", ed è questa circostanza che spinge spesso i geometri a cercare anche dimostrazioni sintetiche quando pure già siano in possesso di dimostrazioni analitiche", U. Bartocci - R.V. Macrì, "Il linguaggio della matematica"). In parole più semplici, il formalismo matematico non è sufficiente ad "omologare" una teoria fisica come intrinsecamente non contraddittoria. E questo perché il "reticolato" del formalismo non "copre" totalmente quello della realtà fisica: questa infatti è avviluppata in una ragnatela fittissima di collegamenti con ‘‘underlying assumptions" - la "conoscenza tacita") di Polanyi - che vengono solo implicitamente considerati senza che il formalismo matematico li "tocchi": con le parole di Bridgman:

"Ogni sistema di equazioni può comprendere solo una piccolissima parte della situazione fisica effettiva: dietro le equazioni vi è uno sfondo descrittivo enorme, tramite il quale esse stabiliscono legami con la natura".

   Se si aggiunge a tutto ciò il sentiero opinabile che la matematica della nostra epoca ha intrapreso, frutto di un «Morbus mathematicorum recens» - per citare Frege - che porta al pericolo di una matematica ‘cabalistica’ che, con le parole di Bacone, "generi" e "procrei" la scienza stessa, a quello che altrove ho definito come "dissonanze del pitagorismo moderno", come far ‘‘digerire’’ a cervelli del calibro di Paul Davies che "d’altra parte il senso comune può generare dei nonsense", o a creare nuove strutture matematiche ogni volta che non siano sufficienti quelle già esistenti per "incapsulare’ ogni frammento della conoscenza (spiega candidamente W.I. McLaughlin in "La risoluzione dei paradossi di Zenone sul moto": "Per due millenni e mezzo i paradossi di Zenone sono stati fonte di discussione e oggetto di analisi, ma solo oggi, grazie e una formulazione dell’analisi matematica che è stata sviluppata nell’ultimo decennio, è possibile risolverli"), non c’è da stupirsi se poi tale sentiero sbuchi nella "moderna metropoli" della meccanica quantistica: "La sua teoria, caro signore, è folle, ma non lo è abbastanza per essere vera", queste famose parole di Niels Bohr sono paradigmatiche della "svolta di questo secolo". Con le parole di Penrose:

«La teoria ha due argomenti molto efficaci a suo favore e solo uno, di scarso rilievo, a sfavore. Innanzitutto, la teoria è sorprendentemente esatta rispetto a tutti i risultati sperimentali fino ad oggi ottenuti. In secondo luogo [...] si tratta di una teoria di straordinaria e profonda bellezza dal punto di vista matematico. L’unica cosa, che può essere detta contro di essa, è che, presa in assoluto, non ha alcun senso!».

   E passiamo adesso a toccare più specificatamente la teoria fisica in esame. Lei conosce la mia profonda convinzione di come la teoria della relatività sia "minata" alle fondamenta da profondi e inappianabili errori logico-filosofici invisibili all’intuito matematico ma radiografabili e smascherabili da una "rete epistemica" (un mio neologismo da lei ben conosciuto) slacciata dal "collare dell’autorità scientificaE e incontaminata dalla "logica del successo’’. In altre parole, dal mio punto di vista la relatività risulta non solo una teoria non combaciante con la realtà fisica (e questa è la parte da lei condivisa) ma, addirittura, piena di "salti concettuali" e contraddizioni logiche annidate internamente.
   Per esempio, lei sa che l’argomento di Selleri sull’impossibilità logica di una netta discontinuità - per quanto riguarda la velocità della luce - tra sistemi di riferimento inerziali e accelerati mi trova d’accordo (d’altronde ero giunto indipendentemente alle stessa conclusione, come testimonia un mio lavoro del 97: "Un’interpretazione antirelativistica dell’esperimento Sagnac").
   Tra l’altro, l’argomentazione "fisica" della discontinuità della velocità della luce si basa in ultima analisi sul "principio di continuità" di Cartesio-Leibniz, un corollario, questo, del principio di ragion sufficiente: ecco un esempio di come la fisica sia legata alla logica - precisamente a quella "logica primordiale" di Cartesio - e di come la matematica sia inerme di fronte alla semantica o alle questioni di principio: questo sarebbe il vero senso della baconiana "strumentalità" della matematica.
   Altre "interferenze logiche" si trovano, per citarne alcune, nel "paradosso dei gemelli" (qui rimando al mio prossimo lavoro: "Sillogismo di Dingle, Twin and Clock Paradoxes e analfabetismo filosofico"), nel concetto di campo (il principio di relatività di Einstein - per quanto questi dichiari che «la teoria delle relatività scaturisce dai problemi del campo» - è incompatibile con il localismo e quindi con la realtà del campo, come ho dimostrato nei mio "Asimmetrie antirelativistiche del campo"), nella presunta relatività della simutaneità (si veda il mio: "Regarding the Theoretical and Experimental Foundations of Special Relativity").

   La famosa equazione dei fronti d’onda
[x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2t^2 = x’^2 + y’^2 + z’^2 - c^2t’^2]
alla base della "genesi einsteiniana", può trarre in inganno il matematico del XX secolo, ignaro dello "sfondo descrittivo enorme" (per l’Einstein del 1905 era addirittura posta come garanzia «che due principi fondamentali sono tra loro compatibili»! - scavalcando lo stesso Newton, che era solito non darsi pace se non riusciva a trovare una "via sintetica"), ma non passerebbe impunemente la "rete" di un vecchio Platone, un Aristotele o un Euclide.
   Sul come e perché la straordinaria massa di scienziati di questo secolo non abbia avvertito ciò, oltre ad essere con, le parole di Herbert Dingle:

"One of the most remarkable examples of the paralysis of the intellect by which physics has been afflicted troughout the abandonment by the ‘experimenters’ of the use of their intelligence and their submission to the dictation of mathematicians"

sarà fonte di studi epistemologici per il nuovo millennio che verrà.


Rocco Vittorio Macrì
c/o Convento Porziuncola
Piazza Martin Luther King, 1/M
06088 S. Maria degli Angeli (Assisi)


Subject: Re: Inquiry...
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:59:32 -0400
From: Paul Marmet <>
To: umberto bartocci <>

Dear Unberto,
I have spent a few hours reading your paper entitled: "Most common
misunderstanding about Special Relativity (SR)"
I would like you to consider that my comments are purely scientific but
coming from a real friend.  I wish my comments will be considered as
positive comments.
Let me start by writing that your paper is exactly the sort of things I
have defended myself several years ago.
Since then, I realised that I have been too much influenced by the teaching (unique way of thinking) I was forced to listen and repeat to get my Ph. D. and get a teaching position later.
It is clear that it was not necessary to read all your paper (even if I
did) to see your conclusion.  You paper starts by a big fundamental
mistake.  Your fundamental philosophy is wrong (which is the result of the usual teaching in science).  You write:
"Of course, there is no place for questioning the LOGICAL validity of the
theory, since it presents itself in the quise of a mathemnatical theory. . . "
Then, you write:
" . . . which allow to transform a physical situation in a mathematical
one, and conversely, . . . "
This is extremely wrong.  It is impossible to transform physics into
mathematics just as it is impossible to transform diagrams, hammers and
saws into a house.  Hammers and saws are tools but you need wood and bricks to built a house.
After writing that, scientist's thinking is over-focussed forever.  There
is no point to argue any more.
You mean that because the mathematics can give a correct "relationship" (I agree with this) between the physical elements that have been "assumed", this proves that the "assumed" physical elements are correct!
That conclusion is clearly wrong.  It is the basic error in physics.
Mathematics is not physics.  As long as physicists will accept such errors,
they will spend time showing that their calculation is correct, while the
correcteness of the calculation is irrelevant.  It is useless to
demonstrate how "logical" the calculation between possibly unphysical
(wrong) hypotheses are.  Any discussion becomes then irrelevant.  If the
mathematics is correct, the physics is correct!  (what a non sense!).  Most
people do not see the seriousness of the problem in physics because they
see the logic BETWEEN the relationships, but they do not understand why the conclusion is physically wrong.
Let me tell you a story.  Some time ago, I wrote to a friend about a worker
in a big industry.  That worker had the reputation of being a thief.  Since
the employers could not discover what the employee as stealing, they
decided to search him every day when leaving work.  The company did not want to be stolen.  Since he was traveling by bicycle, they were searching him and also his bicycle everyday.  They even dismantle the bicycle to look inside the frame and inside the tires.  Some years later, after he left his job, they congratulated him because they believed that he was no longer a thief.  However, he admitted that everyday he was stealing a new bicycle.
This is the way "research" in modern physics is made.
Going back to your paper.
On page 5, (also pages 6. 7 and 8) you write:
Of course, this argument is quite wrong, since alpha is not an inertial
observer in M, . . .
Einstein has never written that the velocity of light is not constant in a
non inertial frame.  In such a case, you should give me a reference.  Since
Einstein claimed the equivalence between gravitational forces and inertial
forces, then the velocity of light should be different against a
gravitational force.
Then on page 10 you write:
. . . the velocity of light is larger than c. ???
As mentioned above, I cannot argue with you on that basis, because you
prove that because the mathematics is correct you conclude that the physics is correct.  I certainly cannot agree with that.  That proof is completely irrelevant.  Because you believe that it is: ". . . allow to transform a physical situation in a mathematical one "
No discussion ABOUT PHYSICS  is possible after that.  You limit the
discussion only to mathematics.
In the example about the thief above, you limit your search to searching if
the thief was hiding something inside the tires of his bicycle.
In my case I deal with physics.  PHYSICS exists by itself.  I do not care
to prove that "mathematics" is correct because "mathematics" is correct.
Nobody can prove you wrong.  However, this is useless.  We can discuss
"real physics" later if you like.
The title of your letter was: "Inquiry".  I hope this satisfies the answers
you were asking for.  Keep working because you are at the point I was some years ago.  The important point is that you keep thinking and asking
questions.  In a few years from now, you will agree with me.
I hope I am not losing a friend.  This is honestly what I think.  I would
certainly love to discuss fundamental physics.

Very Sincerely

Paul Marmet


Subject:             Re: ideas upon which all are supposed to agree
      Date:             Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:58:10 -0400
      From:             Paul Marmet <>
     To:             umberto bartocci <>

   Dear Umberto and friends,
With pleasure, I am always carefully reading all the persuasive arguments
from my friends, who (like me) are unhappy with the fact that modern
physics is not compatible with common sense.  They want to make their
contribution to correct the errors of the past.  This is very generous.
To do so, many suggest their own solution but nobody else is allow to
reconsider "some" of their "exclusive" supreme beliefs.  Of course, those
supreme beliefs are THE IDEAS UPON WHICH ALL ARE SUPPOSED TO AGREE.  This is a very subtle way to claim a dogma.  Therefore, they believe that some "dogma" must be maintained.
There must be no dogma in fundamental research.  May be I must admit that I have one: The result must be compatible with observations.  But, I have another one which is equally indispensable, but it is philosophical.   I believe in "Common Sense".  If anything in science is not compatible with "Common Sense", whatever it is, then that is completely wrong.  Some Nobel laureates clearly stated that Nature is not compatible with Common Sense. Therefore I believe that they are fatefully wrong on that point.
At least, you know where I stand.
Since I do not want to lose any of your interesting messages, please note
that my e-mail address has been changed.  My new e-mail is:

Let me have the pleasure to read all your interesting messages.

Paul Marmet


Paul Marmet
Web site:


Subject:         A Very Good Argument Against SR.....
   Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 1999 18:20:13 EDT

In a message dated 10/9/99 5:41:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:
"When I asked to you, and to other people sharing our same feelings AGAINST SR, to indicate what was in their opinion the BEST (and not the SHORTEST!) anti-relativistic argument, I was sincerely trying to see whether there existed indeed some really good and still unknown weapons to be used against "irrationalistic phyisics".

    I think one of the best arguments favoring a Lorentz-Poincare ether view of the Lorentz transforms over the SR derivation is the fact that the Lorentz transforms necessarily follow (this cannot be denied) for acoustic/media processes when measured by acoustical/media-based instruments.  No one can dispute the validity of the ether/media explanation (i.e., the natural, Newtonian, fluid dynamic derivation) for these Lorentzian formulas for acoustic/media processes.
    To give a brief example, consider an open-air sound (or any wave) clock that uses a pulse of sound (or any wave) to measure time.  A single unit of time would be determined by a pulse that moves from a base to a roof and is reflected back to the base again.  If such a sound clock is strapped to the top of, say, a train that is moving through the atmosphere, the rate of the sound clock is retarded with respect to other sound clocks that are stationary in the atmosphere by 1/gamma.  Relativistic Doppler equations also follow for pulses emitted or received by such sound clocks when in relative motion.  If you use both sound clocks and wind-deformable rulers or "sound rulers" (that contract when moving with respect to the atmosphere by a factor of 1/gamma,) then the Lorentz transformations necessarily follow for acoustic processes that are measured by such instruments.  This has been proved mathematically many times.  Thus, all physicists have to agree that the Lorentz transforms follow for a specific class of media equations for purely Newtonian, Galilean reasons.  Physicists can't deny the correctness of the media explanation for the Lorentz equations.
    An interesting question now arises concerning Newton's first two principles of reasoning -- which claim that as far as it is possible you must assume that like effects arise from like causes.  Is this a valid scientific point or is it more scientifically reasonable to assume that like effects (acoustic and electromagnetic adherence to the Lorentz equations) are produced by completely different causes (media explanation for sound and SR's postulates for light)?  Is it truly reasonable to assume completely different axioms to explain the conformity of electromagnetism to Lorentz equations when everyone must already accept another explanation for the fact those equations also apply to acoustics?  Let's even make this point more clear.  Let's compare two in-depth physics tomes, one pro-SR, the other pro-ether.  Let's further imagine that each tome devotes chapter 10 to fluid dynamics and acoustics and chapter 11 to electromagnetism and the Lorentz equations.  In chapter 10 of both books, you would have to include the acoustic derivation of the Lorentz equations.  However, in chapter 11 of the pro-SR tome, you would have to tell students to forget everything they have learned about Galilean relativity, Newtonian frameworks, acoustics, media waves, materialistic cause-and-effect, and their intuitive notions of time, distance, and velocity. You would then have to describe completely new postulates that would shock the brightest of the class, and then you would have to rederive completely all the equations you had already derived in chapter 10.  The chapter would consist of dozens of pages.
    In the pro-ether tome, however, Chapter 11 would read as follows:
"Electromagnetism is also a media process which must currently be measured by electromagnetic clocks and electromagnetic rulers and so adheres to the Lorentz equations.  See chapter 10 on the acoustic Lorentz equations."
    In brief, SR uses new and arbitrary principles of the universe to re-explain effects like Doppler, Sagnac, Lorentz transforms, interference, reflection, refraction,  aberration, etc. --when all of these effects occur for media processes and are explained quite simply without using such new, extraordinary and arbitrary postulates.  The pro-ether explanation should obviously be preferred.
Dennis McCarthy


Bologna, 24 agosto 1999

Caro Umberto

Rispondo alle tue domande in modo esplicito e, spero, non fraintendibile.

Il miglior argomento contro la Relatività è la sua assoluta mancanza di verifiche sperimentali, o, il che è lo stesso, la contraddizione tra i suoi postulati e la realtà sperimentale.

1° Esempio: gli esperimenti del tipo "Michelson-Morley" non hanno mai dato il "risultato nullo" supposto dalla Relatività.
Tu ti ostini spesso a sottolineare che il risultato è stato "inferiore alle aspettative".
Come Selleri fai finta di non aver constatato - o non vuoi constatare, che:
a) Il risultato è sicuramente non nullo, il che toglie ogni significato alle trasformazioni di Lorentz, nate per spiegare un supposto "risultato nullo".

b) Il risultato è non solo "non nullo", ma sicuramente periodico, il che toglie ogni "costanza" alla Costante Universale di Einstein: cM == 2L/DT .

A chiarimento finale ti allego copia della comunicazione che presenterò a Como il 15 Settembre.
Leggi attentamente, cosa che non fai mai, le Referenze citate.

Quelle che non hai te le spedirò io.

Infine, pongo a te la stessa domanda:
Puoi indicare anche una sola verifica sperimentale del postulato Einsteiniano sulla costanza di cM e sulla "non esistenza" dell’etere?

Cordiali saluti


Subject: Light aberration
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:40:42 -0400
From: "Francisco" <>
To: "Umberto Bartocci" <>

Dear professor Umberto Bartocci:
Excuse me for the delay in answering your comment on Galeczki's view of light aberration. I must say that not only I agree with your analysis, but I even wrote something similar in a paper I presented in our NPA meeting of 1997, at Storrs, Connecticut, USA.
I will copy the pertinent paragraph here. If you want to see the whole paper I could mail it to you or FAX it, (is a little long). The Title is:
"Discussion of the Relativistic and Classical Doppler Theories".
I DO NOT say that Doppler is similar to aberration. I only mentioned to you that Einstein treated both effects using the same equation. It is true that this is very "elegant", but mathematical elegance sometimes propers at the expense of physical disgrace. Anyway, concerning Doppler and aberration here is what I said in 1997:
    "We would have never noticed these effects if it were not for the
circumstance that our 'receiver', the Earth, constantly changes its velocity
direction around a quasi circular orbit. Thus the privilege exists of
observing Doppler when the earth approaches a star, or recedes from it six
months later. Also, aberration is detectable as a 'differential' aberration,
by comparing the situation when the earth travels perpendicularly to the
line of sight to the right and six months later to the left. Relativity uses
this strategy to accomodate the [velocity] changes to a formula that
contains only the relative velocity between emitter and receiver".
     So that is why SRT can still "calculate" the aberration constant, as
you say, but with the wrong theory. "Half aberration" makes no sense from a theoretical point of view as Galeczki shows. We can say that SRT is right, but for the wrong reason.
    Concerning "mathematical elegance" and "logical consistency" I do have a comment to make inspired by the criticism that O'Rahilly made on the way that SRT "explains" the Doppler effect, (which can be also extended to a criticism about aberration in SRT). The criticism is this, and it bears upon the logical consistency of SRT, or, better, upon its "methodological consistency".
    The usual relativistic methodology is this:
    Two observers, each in its own frame of reference, moving at relative
velocity V, observe a "common" phenomenon, (event, force, speed, time
interval, etc). Now, it is crucial for SRT to distinguish between the PROPER frame and the NON-PROPER one. The Lorentz transformation is simply a recipe to go from some given PROPER values  to the NON-PROPER values in the other frame. Or viceversa, given the NON-PROPER values, to get the PROPER ones.
    In such a method the WHOLE PHENOMENON to be measured, observed, studied, etc, must be contained in the PROPER FRAME. For example,  the force between TWO static charges. They only show a Coulomb force in the PROPER FRAME. Then, when "seen" from the NON-PROPER frame at velocity V, a new Lorentz transformation term arises which SRT interprets as the "magnetic field B".
    Another example: the PROPER observer measures a time or a length interval in his frame. Then the NON-PROPER observer applies the Lorentz equations and gets the NON-PROPER values, which happen to be dilated, or contracted respect the PROPER values. But the interval is COMPLETED in the PROPER FRAME. Its beginning and its end are both, PROPER events in THAT frame. Likewise, the beginning and end are, both, non-proper events in the other frame.
    Einstein himself, in the "thought-experiment" whereby he "deduced" the Lorentz transformation by synchronizing two distant clocks, followed this method at the beginning of his 1905 paper. The events were: 1-emission from clock A; 2-reflection at clock B; 3-final reception at clock A. But all three clocks are stationary in the PROPER frame. And, therefore, they both are "moving" from the viewpoint of the NON-PROPER frame. Well, if we agree that the previous description is the orthodox METHOD to be used by SRT, then it happens that, the way Einstein applied SRT to the Doppler (and aberration) phenomena in Section 7 of his paper, CONTRADICTS the previous methodology he himself started. Why?
    Because in this case the beginning of the event, (emission of light) and the end, (reception of light) are placed in DIFFERENT frames of reference, moving at relative speed V.  So there is no way to apply the crucial concepts of PROPER and NON-PROPER frames.  In reality, Einstein MIXED-UP the two frames. He allowed the phenomenon of light propagation to CROSS OVER from one frame to the other.  I know that most authors and popularizers of SRT do the same thing. They even allow "information" to be exchanged from one frame to the other; or a third observer to "jump" from one to the other.
That is absurd. The only communication possible between the two frames is, precisely, the LORENTZ equations.  That is why all experiments designed to "test" SRT and which rely on light signals to be exchanged between "moving" and "non-moving" frames, is a futile endeavor.
    And this is the case of the Doppler (and aberration) theories in SRT.
To be consistent with his original methodology, (the one whereby he DEDUCED the Lorentz equations in Sections 2 and 3 of his paper), Einstein SHOULD HAVE placed the emitter and receiver of light, BOTH stationary in one frame. And then, analyze what happens from the NON-PROMER frame, for which both emitter and receiver would be "moving". But of course, if emitter and receiver are relatively stationary then there would be no net observable Doppler, nor any net observable aberration at all.  Alternatively, Einstein could put the emitter and the receiver in the SAME frame, specifying that the receiver is moving relatively to the emitter. But then he had to admit the classical equation for the Doppler and aberration effects, and "transform" it to a non-proper frame in which,both the emitter and the receiver have an additional relative velocity V.  He might get the extra beta factor, typical of SRT, but he could not explain neither Doppler nor aberration in this way without the classical beginnings. As O'Rahilly says, Einsteins procedure is unnecessary, showing nothing new. His added beta factor cannot be tested experimentally. It depends on what an "imaginary" observer might see when compared to the real observer in our laboratory. It is sheer phantasy.
    As a point of fact, Einstein changed (and hence, violated) the methodology of his own theory when crossing from the initial sections of his paper to the final ones.  In this sense I disagree with you about the
logical consistency of Einsteinian relativity.  If other authors have made a
better job than Einstein, then we might accept a self-consistent Theory of
Relativity. But insofar as Einstein is concerned, I see everywhere in his
1905 paper a constant lack of logical consistency.
    I studied patiently this paper for almost a complete year. I am sure
that if you do the same thing you will find a continuous parade of logical
"vandalisms". I am really surprised that the editors of the "Annalen der
Physik", (which included Planck), ever accepted this paper.
     Again, if you are interesed in this study, I can send a copy by mail.
(The paper is called: "Did Einstein deduce the Lorentz transformation in
1905?".  The answer is: NO, if by deduction we mean a logically consistentdemonstration).
 `Well, in coming to a close I would like to conclude that:
1-Galeczki is right in the fact that the usual relativistic deduction of
aberration does not work in practice.
2-You are right in the fact that aberration is observable only as a
"differential" effect, in which case the relativistic deffect mentioned by
Galeczki and others is avoided.
3-I add that, from a deeper point of view, Einstein did not really produce a
Doppler/aberration theory     consistent with his own initial methodology.
    I am happy that you bring these topics for discussion among us. Let me
know of any other idea(s).
My best regards,
Francisco J. Muller

Subject:         Quick answer
   Date:         Thu, 2 Sep 1999 17:25:44 -0400
   From:         "Francisco" <>
     To:         "Umberto Bartocci" <>

Dear professor Umberto Bartocci:
    Unfortunately after I finished with my adventure with Tosca I had some other immediate work to do and was not able to study in detail your last Email neither this recent one of september. Also I was engaged in trying to make the final version of my paper presented in Bologna to send to Monti. Regretfully I was not able to repeat an experiment performed in 1973 as well as I have desired. In the middle of it the whole apparatus lost its balance and I could not repair it easily. Then I spent many many days reviewing my old notes of 1973 only to discover that the conditions of that rotational unipolar induction experiment was not exactly as I had presented in Bologna. So I am in the middle of an ethical conflict. Should I submit the paper as it is anyway? Or rather, should I modify it? Or should I try to make a new repetition of the experiment? At this moment I do not know what to do, buy I hope I can solve this "impasse" within this month. Question: is there any specific deadline for submitting the papers to Monti?
    Having said this let me make a very few comments about your last Email.
   The comparison of doubting SR being similar to doubting the Copernican System is, by an ironical twist, a very good one for us to criticize relativity.  Precisely one of the problems connected with the Principle of Equivalence is that it would admit, from a logical point of view, the system of Copernicus as well as that of Ptolemy.  When it comes to rotational motion General Relativity has opted for the "equivalence" of rotating frames. Hence, it is the same whether we use Copernicus or Ptolemy. Do you agree that SR admits this "ambiguity"?
    I know it does so precisely in the case I have studied most for 26 years now: Unipolar Induction. If you want a criticism of SR in the experimental field, please, check my experiments in the home page of the NPA, this is:
and then click on the article "Unipolar Induction". My main points there are:
1)The rotational unipolar induction experiment "escapes" from SRT, (in the sense that SRT cannot explain it. THis is no logical problem, because SRT was never meant to be applied to rotating systems, in spite of the fact that relativists sometimes tried DO so, beginning with Einstein himself).
2)To explain rotational unipolar induction the only thing relativists can do is to "invoke" General Relativity. This is the paper by Schiff, 1939, where the rotating magnet is assumed to be quiet and the REST OF THE UNIVERSE is visualized as rotating backwards!!!  Then a new tensorial term appears that "warps" the metric, and Voila!, that is rotational unipolar induction.
    As you see, here is where the methodological ambiguity enters in: they give equal physical value to a rotating magnet as to a backward rotating universe instead. Hence.... Copernicus is equivalent to Ptolemy!!!
3)Disgusted with this "magic" fairy tale solution I was able to modify the rotational inductor in the form of a translational one and.... THE RESULT IS THE SAME AS IN THE ROTATIONAL CASE, provided one avoids transversal edges to be present.  (That is why I presented in Bologna a paper about "moving magnetic edges")
   The resulting positive unipolar induction, in this case, (a rectilinear inertial one), CONTRADICTS special relativity, and we cannot "escape into" General Relativity, because now the system is neithe rotational nor accelerating.
     Hence... AT LEAST IN THIS CASE, SRT, is contradicted by simple, first order experimental facts.
That much I can say about the invalidation of SRT from an experimental point of view.
    But what happens is that not even people from NPA understand my experiment or, if they do, or think they do, they believe it is a trivial one that can be simply "explained" using current engineering ideas about "cutting" lines, etc, etc.
    What can I do?
I acknowledge that in my experiment there is still some relative motion between the central magnets and the outside yoke, but this is just a circumstantial requirement of the need to use a CLOSE circuit. The yoke is needed to ISOLATE the external branch ECR from the magnetic field.
The best proof that my experiments are fundamental, and true, and anti-SRT would beto repeat them with an "open" circuit, (an antenna), as Cardone and Mignani have done.
    But I have never being able to perform succesfully an "open circuit" experiment. That is why I was so interested in Cardone's experiment.
    [No, they have not sent to me any comment about my study of that experiment.]
Back to the logical consistency of SRT I can only say one thing:
    I studied during a complete year the first three sections of Einstein's original paper of 1905. It is full of logical and mathematical and methodological inconsistencies. I can hardly believe that such a sloppy paper could have ever been published in a journal where Max Planck was one of the editors. I suppose that, since Einstein reached the same "transformations" that Lorentz reached a year before (in the same Journal), that the reviewers did not care too much about Einstein's way of "deducing" the transformations. But I can challenge the entire scientific community to show if Einstein, REALLY deduced the Lorentz transformation in a LOGICAL way in that famous paper of 1905. I think HE DID NOT.
    If you have never read this paper in detail, please do so. But... then it might be a waste of time. Even if you agree that there are about 7 logical inconsistencies in those 3 sections, the conclusion would be:
Special Relativity Theory as we know it today, IS NOT based on the famous 1905 paper of Einstein.
Do you think it is worthwhile, from a stratetic point of view, to insist in the sloppiness of this paper?
Maybe it is. I am sure that Wesley would drastically disagree.
    Yet, I already made the study many years ago. To say the least, Einstein even "integrates" a numerical equation. He makes superficial mistakes in identifying a variable. He uses a condition obtained for the longitudinal ray to be applicable to the transversal ray as well.  Doing so he contradicts d(tau)/dt=0 for the transversal ray. He really assumes that the length are contracted when moving, in an "ad hoc" manner, much as Fitzgerald did before him. Yet, Fitzgerald is criticized for this "ad hocness", whereas Einstein is praised for it. Finally, what he proved for variables, (x,y,z,t) describing only an optical event, he generalizes to any event whatsoever, in a most arbitrary way, thus violating the method of "logical induction". In short: this is a piece of forgery. I am almost sure that Einstein knew the result before hand and that then he "maneuvered" a way to "deduce" the Lorentz equations. Thus he introduced those "imaginary" clock synchronizations with imaginary observers that nobody ever has seen in any experiment whatsoever.  In short: Einstein's "gedankenexperiment" of 1905 is a perfect fairy tale, showing all the irrationalities of a piece of phantasy.  It seems as if it were the perfect example of his own recommendations.  He said: "the theorist should give free reins to his fancy; there is no other way to the goal", or something like that. He said that "the emotional desire to arrive at the goal" is what must be used, not just "logic". Thus, he concluded that "the fundamental principles of Physics are free inventions of the human mind".
Well, Umberto, I must stop here. This was longer than I intended.
I hope I can go more deeply into your correspondence with Galeczki. And if you have any specific information about the Monti publication please, do send it to me. Thanks very much.
Cordially, Francisco J. Muller


From: Neil Munch <>
To: Umberto Bartocci <>

Novembre 16, 1999

Dear Umberto,

Thanks for your email of 8/9/99 responding to Wesley's comments, and the copy of your paper "Most common misunderstandings about SR".  Your paper was thought-provoking and contained some new [to me] thoughts about SR.  I liked your email question to Wesley:
 "What is . . . the actual best argument . . . that one could produce today against relativity?"
That provides a challenge to all of us to see if we can reach some sort of agreement on what is wrong with SR.  I will suggest two answers,  one general and one specific, then discuss parts of your paper.

1a. My answer #1: Assumptions in SR (such as listed in an Appendix here) have been allowed to shift inappropriately.  Those shifts were masked in turn by inadequate notation.  As a consequence, that which is called 'special relativity (SR)' is actually a collection of differing results each based on its particular sub-set of assumptions.  In many cases, there are conflicts between results of sub-sets because their assumptions conflict.  Five examples are discussed in Ref. [1].  When any single set of those assumptions is constantly assumed, no satisfactory solution to SR objectives is found.

1b. Discussion:  Even a casual review shows that shifts do occur in SR assumptions.  For example, the definitions of the terms x,x',t,t' shift between inter-related intervals to unrelated point-values.  The question then is not whether shifts occur but "What are the influences of those shifts?".  In answer, first, there is nothing incorrect in the shifting of assumptions, per se, as long as conditions such as the following are met:
 a) Readers are alerted to that shift.
 b) Each result is tied to its specific sub-set of assumptions used in its derivation, and the usage of its result is limited to that domain.
 c) Assumptions do not contradict each other within any given sub-set of assumptions and results.
Unfortunately, that has not been done in SR, as discussed next.  Assumptions from the Appendix are indicated by CAPITAL letters and/or their numbers.
 Re a) above, readers and authors have been unaware of assumptions shifts because they are unmentioned and because those shifts are masked by inadequate notation.
 Re b) above, results have not be limited to the domains of their assumptions.  For instance in Einstein texts, results are reached assuming #10 LIGHT USE and the related assumptions of #11 INTERVALS and #19 SYMMETRY. Those results are then applied in contradictory situations where x,x',t,t' are point-values and where length and time vary asymmetrically -- all without notifying the reader.  Then, #10 LIGHT USE is reintroduced via the light wave equations and contradictory results co-mingled in the desire to show that SR is compatible with Michelson-Morley (M-M) test results (#30) or Einstein's Lorentz transformation (E-LT) per assumption #31.  There is no known case where results are tied to a constant sub-set of assumptions per condition b) above.
 Re c) above, we can see that many of the assumptions in the Appendix are binary, that is, they assume either the existence or absence of something.  For instance, one assumes either #19 SYMMETRY or ASYMMETRY of length and time changes -- but not both because that would be self conflicting.  Yet both sides of these assumptions are commonly used in the texts as seen with use of precise notation.  Two examples are:
a) the Taylor and Wheeler [2] text commences by assuming both symmetry and asymmetry (#19) in their interval equation; b) many texts simultaneously assume the terms x,x',t,t' in E-LT are point-values in some places and intervals in other places -- even though intervals are required for dimensional compatibility with v.  These shifts produce significantly different results, yet remain unquestioned in the literature.
   We are unlikely to have an intelligent discussion about SR as long as underlying assumptions are allowed to shift about or be combined in such ways.

2a. My answer #2: First, we define a 'rest' frame K containing observer P and a 'moving' frame K' containing a light source, and also define light speed seen on K by P as cP and light speed on K' as seen from K by P as cP'.  Using precise notation and holding #10 LIGHT USE constant, it is easily shown, c.f. [3], that cP' varies significantly from cP by the amount predicted by Newtonian mechanics.  Since the only difference between this light speed and the light speed measured by P on her own frame is associated with the velocity v of the light source, this contradicts Einstein's Second Principle -- an underlying tenet of SR.

2b. Discussion:  This anomaly was recognized by Einstein early in his 1905 paper, though its conflict with the Second Principle is not clearly seen until precise notation is used and #10 LIGHT USE is held constant.  This is a serious flaw because this kind of light use is required in Michelson-Morley (M-M) tests, Doppler experiments, the light wave equations and in many applications of the Lorentz transformation (E-LT).  If assumptions shift away from #10 LIGHT USE, then it may be possible to show compatibility with other objectives but any resulting equations would not necessarily be applicable to M-M, the E-LT and Doppler experiments (assumptions #30, #31, #32).  Nor would the link be preserved to Einstein's gedanken experiment which he used in his 'proof' of space-time in the first place.
 Let's consider one situation in Einstein's 1916 book [4] when assumptions shift away from #10 LIGHT USE with associated shifts of #11 INTERVALS to point values and #19 SYMMETRY to asymmetry.  There, he first assumes the light wave equations, written here as:

x = c t      and      x' = c' t' (M1a, M1b)

Then he reaches the LC & TD equations

x / x' = g    and    t / t' = 1 / g (M2a, M2b)

One might easily expect to be correct in combining and reducing the above equations to:

c / c' = g2 (M3)

If (M3) were valid, it would contradict SR's 2nd principle.  But (M3) is not valid because it combines equations which are based on self-contradictory assumptions.  Frequent repetition of such flawed steps in SR is ample reason for its rejection.

3. Comments on your paper:  I would like to raise questions in what I hope are not "resolute obstructionism" but friendly comments which may lead to a better understanding of those parts that are wrong [if any] and thereby gain a glimpse of the kinds of future research that may be needed to fix them.  I welcome any response or corrections to the following.
 It seems to me that your paper continues Einstein's practices of shifting assumptions in ways which are contradictory to the three conditions in "My answer #1" above.  Although Einstein often shifted objectives (e.g., among assumptions #27 through #32) and then shifted his assumptions to reach any particular objective, his initial and probably overriding objective was to reconcile the Newtonian changes of light speed in moving frames with the constancy of light speed measurements (#28).  His initial assumptions #1 through #11 matched that purpose.

3a. Shifts in observer position:  In your paper you also shift back and forth inappropriately between assumptions in your effort to show that SR applies in a number of other domains.  For example, you want to justify the usefulness of SR in non-rectilinear motion (shift from #3) by shifting the observer (assumption #9) to a distant IFR (the existence of an IFR is yet another assumption).  But in SR, where results are presumed to depend on the position of observer and measurement standards, that position is of high importance.  Once Einstein's 'rest' frame (#9) is established all measurements must be made from that frame, or else conflicting results may be reached.  Shifts from that position are only acceptable if they have no effect on results with initial assumptions (#1 through #11), or if the new sub-set of results is linked to its revised sub-set of assumptions -- which is not done in your paper.
 When observer location (#9) is shifted other assumptions may also be affected.  For example, the first principle (#7) would likely be contradicted by the concept of a privileged IFR frame, i.e., the IFR observer would clearly see a different view looking at earth than an observer on earth looking back at the IFR which appears to travel at high speed.  You've increased the number of frames (#8) to three (one for light source, one for observer on earth, and one for IFR).  That requires Einstein's theorem of addition of velocities (its correctness is another assumption, see note [5]).  It seems highly unlikely that assumptions #10 LIGHT USE and #11 INTERVALS can still be applied (as done with initial assumptions) with such a distant observer.  If so, your sub-set of results and assumptions for the IFR observer would no longer be compatible with M-M test results (#30), Doppler (#32), the light wave equations, and many uses of E-LT (#31).  Does not your paper describe a different sub-set of SR than that presumed to reconcile Newtonian kinematics with constancy of light speed (#28)?

3b. Sagnac inapplicability:  By moving the observer to a distant IFR, you want to show in your Section 3 that Sagnac effect is properly described by SR.  But unless the radius is extended to infinity, the path will not be rectilinear and the observed 'moving' frame(s) will have different paths and speeds than seen in rectilinear motion.  The Sagnac (and Michelson-Gale and GPS) tests are performed in the real world where accelerations due to gravity and centrifugal and Coriolis effects will influence results IF the light photon have mass.  If we assume (another assumption) that light photons have mass (c.f. Pound-Repka) their paths and speeds would be influenced in Sagnac environments in ways predicted by old-fashioned Newtonian equations of rotational motion (here called "NRM").  Wouldn't it be wise to determine what the NRM equations predict before we ascribe behavior of photons in Sagnac tests to SR or non-SR or ether or whatever?  My very limited analyses show NRM effects to be of the correct sense and perhaps the magnitude of the Sagnac results -- but that certainly should be checked by someone more talented in kinetics.  In any case, if we hold to kinematics (#1) and its absence of forces, Sagnac is inapplicable.

3c. Light's speed:  Re your Section 4, I agree there is something amiss with the Second principle, and I think more research is required on that -- such as studies of light-speed from a linearly accelerating light source.  You speculate that light speed may be constant in respect to an inertial frame -- but what light speed would one expect on an IFR from a linearly accelerating light source?  With the accelerations related to rotation, as in Sagnac effects, the data from the GPS seem to show that light speed around Earth in each direction via satellites and ground stations is constant relative to an entrained non-rotating ether [or inertial space]. But, that may just as well be a result of Coriolis acceleration in the same way that a Foucault pendulum remains unaffected by the Earth's rotation.
 There are many other assumptions mentioned in your paper, such as Minkowski's space-time and relationships of SR to GR (assumption #26), which also seem to be additional sub-sets of results when tied to their specific assumptions most of which contradict initial SR assumptions.  In your Section 6 on Roemer's results, his results were of great value in 1676, but hardly worth a detailed analysis since his measured c was about 30% low and probably too inaccurate for such conclusions.  Modern radar data to the moon and Mars are more accurate but still inconclusive.  Curt Renshaw is working with JPL on recent radar data to higher speed satellites that may have some promise but I don't know what conclusions they have reached as to substantiation or rejection of SR. I do seem to recall Curt said that JPL never uses SR in any of their trajectory calculations.  But all of these experiments have shifted from SR's kinematic domain (#1) and, in my opinion, have little bearing on the sub-set of SR intended to meet objective #28.

3d. Stellar aberration:  Likewise the shifts in observer position (#9) in stellar aberration in your Section 6 are similar to your observer shifts discussed above.  Einstein also shifted the observer away from a position at a telescope on Earth.  The desire to move the observer to an IFR is understandable to avoid complexities of Earth-based analyses and the ridiculous observation of stars moving at >> c.  But the earth-based observer is the 'rest' frame if SR initial assumptions are to held constant.  So, stellar aberration is meaningless in SR if the observing frame is rotating.
 I will not comment further on these Sections since I hope my concerns with their assumption shifts are already clear.

4. Definition of special relativity (SR):  You are to be commended on attempting to minimize confusion by stating your definition of SR.  But I believe your version shifts both assumptions and results to sub-sets of GR (assumption (#26).  That's certainly your prerogative, but you need to alert readers of the shift from Einstein's initial reconciliation of Newtonian kinematics with light-speed constancy (#28) and away from #10 LIGHT USE.  My definition, which should come as no surprise, would be:

 "That which is currently called 'Special Relativity" is actually a melange of sub-sets of objectives, assumptions and results, where any individual sub-set has consistent and compatible objectives, assumptions and resulting equations.  Many of these individual sub-sets conflict because one sub-set of objectives, assumptions and results conflict with those of other sub-sets.  Such an environment has made it possible to prove or refute any particular sub-set of results by simply shifting the underlying assumptions to or away from those in that sub-set."

5. Final thoughts:  I do not mean to appear overly critical of your paper or to speak overly long about my concerns with un-controlled assumption shifts.  In defense of your paper, it does not shift assumptions more than other papers throughout this century including those by Einstein.  But it is frustrating to find that so few contemporary authors investigate or even acknowledge such shifts, or implement any means for their control.  Until that happens, and we return to the basic research to understand light propagation in various environments, I fear we will continue spinning our wheels without gainful forward motion.

References and notes:

[1] Munch, N.E., "Conflicts in SR resulting from assumption shifts", Galilean Electrodynamics, Special Issue No. 2, Fall 1999. (Available in early Oct.)
[2] Taylor, E.F., Wheeler, J.A., "Spacetime Physics", Freeman & Co., 1963.  The authors commence with two conflicting assumptions of the light wave equation Dx=cDt (#10) and rotated coordinates (#19 ASYMMETRY).  Their starting equation is (interval)2 = (Dt)2-(Dx)2.  But with light use (#10), length and time must vary symmetrically and the Taylor & Wheeler interval has the trivial value of zero.
[3] Munch, N.E., "Conflicting relationships in SR and its Doppler equations",  Galilean Electrodynamics, pp. 111-116, Vol. 9 No.6, Nov./Dec. 1998.
[4] Einstein, A.E. "Relativity; the special and the general theory", pp 33-37,  Crown Publ., 1916/1961.
[5] For velocity v between frames K and K' and w between K' and K", the addition of velocities theorem determines velocity W between K and K".  The accumulated relativistic effects of K' as seen from K and of K" as seen by K' is different from that effect when K' is removed and relativistic changes on K" seen from K at velocity W.  This seems to be a flaw in the addition of velocities theorem.

 Thirty-four Assumptions In SRT Derivations And Usage
 And Some Of Their Shifts

#1. Kinematics (no influence of external forces) vs kinetics.
#2. Constant velocity v between frames.
#3. Rectilinear motion (no rotation or curved paths).

Light speed:
#4. Constant measured light-speed c regardless of source speed (2nd principle).
 #5. Measurement of c is correct, e.g., not influenced by measurement apparatus.
#6. Light speed c is equal to em speed c.

Frames of reference:
#7.No privileged frame (1st principle).
#8. Two frames (usually) vs three or more; the frame of light quanta is ignored.
#9. One frame is consistently the "rest frame" from which observations are made. (Observer position and hence "rest frame" is often shifted to another frame.)

#10. Use (or non-use) of light travel to relate x,x',t,t'.  This is termed "light use".
#11. Intervals (vs point values) nature of the terms x,x',t,t'.
#12. Variable definition of terms t, t' (e.g.,clock-time, clock rate, time between ticks, lifetime, period between waves) and of x, x'.
#13. Universality of orientation of c & v.  (All orientations vs one orientation.)
#14. Linearity (i.e., single root) vs non-linearity (more than 1 root) of equations.
#15. v = v' (vs v ¹ v'), i.e., for any 2 frames, each frame sees the other at the same v.
#16. Real (actual) relativistic changes in lengths and times, vs apparent changes.
#17. Concern with simultaneity of clocks, vs simultaneity of time intervals.
#18. No relativistic changes in proper values of length and time, as measured against standards in observer's own frame.
#19. Symmetrical relativistic changes of length and time (e.g., length contractions are accompanied by time contractions) vs asymmetrically.
#20. Applicability of techniques (such as rotated coordinates, tensor analyses and determinants) are assumed without justification.
#21. Non-existence of ether or other privileged inertial frames.
#22. Presumption of a real (vs apparent) space-time continuum.
#23. Real (vs inertial) changes in mass and momentum with v.
#24. Ignore conflicts with quantum mechanics.
#25. Derived equations are self-consistent (vs self-conflicting).
#26. SRT is presumed to provide an underlying basis of GRT even though their domains (absence vs presence of accelerations) are mutually exclusive.

Objective-related assumptions:
#27. SRT is compatible with Maxwell's equations.
#28. SRT explains constancy of c on moving frames.
#29. SRT is compatible with Lorentz contraction.
#30. SRT is compatible with Michelson-Morley (M-M) test data.
#31. SRT is compatible with the Lorentz transformation (E-LT).
#32. SRT is compatible with Doppler and stellar aberration measurements.

#33. Results limited to their specific assumptions (vs not limited).
#34. Dimensional compatibility vs non-compatibility.


Subject:             Re: The missing link
       Date:             Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:52:31 +0300
      From:             P T Pappas <>
        To:             umberto bartocci <>,

Dear Umberto,

I did not participate in this discussion, but I feel I have finally to. I
am glad you are asking rigor for any theory and proof, as besides Physicist, I am also a Mathematician as you.

As we discussed the last day in Bologna where we last met, from a
Mathematical point of view Relativity Theory lacks of the definition of
moving parallel frames. It seems Einstein was not sensitive enough to
realize from the beginning that the Euclidean parallelism breaks down for
relatively moving observers at an angle other than moving parallel to one
axis, say x, or when one applies successive Lorentz transformations at
different orientations. If you recall, the rate of angle of distortion is
called Thomas procession. Clearly, there remains a contradictory
Mathematical gap in SR from the beginning that can not be resolved with a new definition of parallelism. Parallelism in Galilean or Newtonian
Mechanics does not suffer of this problem and the Euclidean parallelism
easily extends there. However, for SR the situation is not the same.
According to my PHD thesis for which I was honored a PHD with the highest distinctions, SR may only survive parallelism by extending to six
dimensions. On Physical grounds, the relative character has to change to an absolute ether associated or co-moving with each object, then a
4-dimensional realization may come out which quantitatively differs in the third and over order of v/c from SR, but the difference is not zero.

Needless to say, I may develop Hundreds of Mathematical paradoxes when dealing with SR and with any thing that has shape and extension in more than one dimension.

But, before going farther into my papers on this issue, I do not like to
drag you along my definitions of Parallelism for moving frames in a
Minkovski space for space time or for a hyperbolic velocity space.

Let me respect your definition of SR  parallelism with all the due respect
to your Mathematical sensitivity.

Therefore, I am anxiously awaiting your rigorous definitions of parallelism for SR, to raise it to a proper Mathematical theory.

Thank you, I remain,

Sincerely Yours,

Panos Pappas


Subject:             Re: Argument against STR...
       Date:             Thu, 07 Oct 1999 10:42:24 -0500
      From:             Tom Phipps <>
        To:             umberto bartocci <>,

Dear Umberto and George,

George advised me not to disseminate the attachment, and I judge this advice to be very good -- particularly because its apparently anti-clerical tone might be misinterpreted. However, it seems to me that the exchange between you two in regard to George's very compact mathematical argument has reached a near impasse, so it may not be inappropriate to throw in an entirely different kind of criticism -- one of a more physical sort. Unfortunately, we are as far as ever from the shiny new crucial experiment Umberto speaks of, which is like the holy grail of SRT criticism.  I am afraid I do not believe in this grail. There is in my opinion nothing but common sense (what I call plausibility) to save mankind from another thousand-year Ptolemaic episode.  Common sense has now been thoroughly discredited among scientists, the new all-powerful priesthood.

With best wishes,

A Bartocci Derby Entry

George Galeczki has called attention on the Internet to a challenge from Professor U. Bartocci to relativity dissidents to "agree upon a short and efficient argument against SRT."  This is a praiseworthy proposal.  I hope others will respond.  George’s own entry in this contest is purely mathematical and so short as to be possibly not convincing to all.  I have for many years looked for an argument of the kind Bartocci has requested and have not found it.  Similarly I have found no argument that would dissuade a Christian from believing in Virgin birth … though it be rather easy to dissuade a Buddhist.  Simple physical plausibility will serve for the latter.  I should like to offer here my own entry in this Derby, modestly aimed at Buddhists in the sense of being based solely on physical plausibility, without reference to mathematics.
In his 1905 paper initiating SRT, Einstein defined an inertial system as one in which Newton’s laws (in their simplest form) hold at low speeds.  He considered a "stationary" inertial system K in which lengths were calibrated and clocks synchronized according to a specified procedure.  Then, with axis calibration of an initially stationary second system   similarly established, he "set into motion" that second system (along the direction of the shared x-axes).  He gave no details, but presumably this setting into motion was such as to maintain the   axes in a strain-free (unstressed) state, in order not to spoil the length calibration.  With the help of two postulates, he then performed what has been generally accepted as a logical deduction of the Lorentz transformation equations.  The latter implied the necessity of a universal physical Lorentz contraction of extended structures in the direction of their relative motion.  (Later this contraction proved to be not universal in the case of rotary motion – but that [Ehrenfest paradox] is not the horse I wish to beat here.  Also the deduced transformation failed to possess group properties in more than one spatial dimension, but that is a horse of still another color.)
Let us examine with some care the assumed process of "setting into motion."  Consider the x-axis of   or a meter stick parallel to it.  The meter stick or axis, considered as an extended physical structure, may be idealized in SRT terms as "Born rigid" – that is, as undergoing always precisely the length change specified by the Lorentz contraction formula.  (A classically rigid body would not undergo any length change under acceleration.  But SRT theorists have ruled such an idealization impermissible.)  The meter stick, then, is at rest in  , is Born rigid, and is at all times stress-strain-free; hence (so goes the story) it undergoes Lorentz contraction as   is accelerated.  Now, acceleration is represented in a Minkowski diagram as worldline curvature.  So, we see that as   accelerates the worldlines of the front and back ends of the meter stick at rest there must curve … and in fact must curve differently.  That is, the back end worldline must curve forward more sharply than the front end worldline, in order that the back end may begin to "catch up" with the front end to produce Lorentz contraction of the meter stick as measured on any (subsequent) hyperplane of constant K-time.  (A diagram would help here, but I want to do it all with words.)
One can see this intuitively by thinking of two straight lines initially parallel, vertical, and separated a fixed distance D, which begin to curve identically in their common plane at the same height (same K-time).  A horizontal plane intersecting those identically curving lines at any greater height (later K-time) will intersect two points that are exactly the distance D apart.  Consequently, if a "Lorentz contraction" of D is to occur (and to be measurable in the initial rest system K), the two worldlines cannot curve identically.
Now worldline curvature is a graphical representation of mass-particle response to force application … so differential curvature implies differential force application:  More force must be applied to the back of the meter stick than to the front.  And this must be true at all instants, beginning from rest.  Thus in SRT in order to keep the meter stick stress-strain-free at all times, while setting   into motion, it is necessary to apply different forces at front and back.  Whereas, in Newton’s physics, to keep the meter stick stress-stain-free it is necessary to apply the same forces front and back.  Since both of the foregoing statements apply to the initial state of rest, which (zero-speed limit) is the state in which Newton’s physics is generally supposed by SRT supporters to coincide with SRT physics, it follows that there is a logical inconsistency.  If, classically, you want to accelerate an extended structure while keeping it continually stress-free, you must apply identical forces to all particles of the structure.  If, classically, you want to stress that structure you must apply different forces, as required by SRT.
So Newton says the meter stick, accelerated according to the SRT prescription, becomes stressed and thus ceases to be a fiducial standard of length.  From the first instant of acceleration of   it ceases to be a metric standard for Newtonian physics, but remains one for SRT physics.  How do we determine just how much more force to apply to the back than to the front in order to keep the meter stick a metric standard according to SRT?  There is no "natural" operational prescription, no way to "let nature take its course."  We must aid nature by using a theoretical formula … and, if we fail to follow that exact formula for differential force application, the standard becomes stressed and ceases to be a standard.  Where does all that fall on your personal plausibility scale?  (On mine it is less plausible than Santa Claus, but more so than the tooth fairy.)  Moreover, the circularity (involved in deducing the Lorentz contraction formula from a "setting into motion" process that relies on operational application of that very same contraction formula) will not be lost upon such critics as happen to be fanatics for logic.
And what does Newton know about the Newtonian limit?  Nothing, according to SRT believers (contrary to Einstein’s 1905 presumption mentioned at the outset).  Thus amended, it’s an air-tight belief system – circular (like the wheel in a wheel, way in the middle of the air), to be sure, but air-tight.  You, too, can enjoy the warmth of shared faith at just one small price of admission:  You must check any firearms, Occam’s razor, and your personal regard for physical plausibility at the church door.

Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.
908 South Busey Avenue
Urbana, Illinois 61801


Subject: Re: Per parlare un po' di fisica...
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 08:53:52 -0400
From: spavieri <>

   Carissimo Bartocci,  grazie per il tuo messaggio e applausi per la tua iniziativa.
   I send you a preliminary answer including my comment on the specific questions on Selleri. If necessary, I may be able to answer to other details after the holidays when I will re-read more carefully your attachments.
   Concerning your questionary, I agree almost completely with your and Josef's position: special relativity (SR) can be doomed only by experiments. Although I share your emotional views, I do not agree completely with you and Josef in that one could say that SR is not understandable. If the SR postulates are accepted, I and many other more specialized physicists believe that SR is understandable, at least within the limits of rationality. I myself have solved many difficult "paradoxes." However, I know that there are still paradoxes that have not been solved. Thus, Josef's argument, for much that one can share his view, is not sufficient to be accepted by the scientific community as disproving SR. Although mathematical internal coherence is generally accepted, as well known, one of the weak physical and intuitive points of SR is the difficulty to describe the same physical reality in different moving frames (paradoxes). Thus, I believe that what seems to be irrational, unacceptable or even not understandable to many people is the physical world described by SR rather than the internal coherence of SR itself. As far as I know, conceptually, SR looks weak because, as claimed by many people, it is difficult, and for some even conceptually impossible, to measure the one-way speed of light. I believe that the related problem of clock synchronization is still a confused and unclear issue in the literature. These facts suggest that, contrary to general belief, SR may not describe properly nature and one should look for experiments to check the postulates of SR. Obviously, the experiments should concentrate where paradoxical situations arise. In conclusion, although I will certainly not put my hand on fire for SR, I agree with you that many criticisms made to SR are unjustified.

   Question 1 for you: Now, since we all agree that SR can be doomed by experiments, do you know of any experiment that does it?

   Concerning experimental tests of SR, Cornille claims that his Trouton-Noble experiment, which he repeated many times, gives non-null result. What do you think about that? Is this not an experiment disproving SR? Please, let me know.

   Cari saluti dal tuo Gianfranco Spavieri

Address: Apartado 32,
La Hechicera
Merida, 5101-Venezuela


Subject: Re: Inquiry...
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 17:28:16 -0700
From: "0rbpublishing" <>
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
To: "umberto bartocci" <>,

Dear Professor Umberto Bartocci,

Thank you for your e-mail of August 9.

I believe that the best argument against SRT is that Einstein's second
postulate, stating that c ± v = c is contradicted by the fact that v can be
experimentally determined by the Doppler effect. Michelson and Morley
measured the distance.  They did not measure a change in the wavelength.
Numerous experiments have shown that the transmission time of
electromagnetic radiation is constant, over a wide range of wavelengths, as determined by the product of wavelength and frequency. This, however, does not mean that the velocity of the photon is constant, since a photon does not travel in a straight line, and it cannot explain the fact that the radiations of shorter wavelengths have more energy than the electromagnetic radiations of longer wavelengths, even though the transmission time is the same for both.

The equation for the phase shift of a rotating interferometer, used in Sagnac, can be derived from the Doppler effect. See Max Dresden and Chen Ning Yang, "Phase Shift in a Rotating Neutron or Optical Interferometer," Physical Review D20 (1979): pp. 1846-1848. Sagnac was an ardent opponent of the theory of relativity.

Dufour and Prunier
     A. Dufour et F. Prunier, "Sur un déplacement de franges enregistré sur
une plate-forme en rotation          uniform," Le Journal de Physique et le
Radium, 8th series, 3 (1942): pp. 153-162.
repeated Sagnac experiment with several modifications of the instrument and observed displacement of the fringes whether the light source and the camera were rotating with the interferometer or were fixed in the laboratory frame, thus refuting the relativists' arguments to explain the Sagnac effect.

I have discussed some serious flaws in the special and general theories of relativity in chapters 2 & 3 of my book GRAVITATIONAL FORCE OF THE SUN. There is an extensive survey of the literature, with references to numerous articles and books by many authors who have criticized the relativity theories. Information about Gravitational Force of the Sun is available at the site. A biography of the author is in Contemporary Authors.

With best regards,
Pari Spolter

Orb Publishing Company
11862 Balboa blvd. # 182
Granada Hills, CA  91344-2753

Phone: (818) 363-2003
Fax: (818) 363-6965


Dear Umberto,

   Thanks once again for the splendid hospitality at Perugia 1989.  I am very sorry that I could not come to Bologna 1999.  I am sending you the enclosed paper "A Physicist Experiments With Physical Studies" for the Proceedings.

   Regarding your debate with Wesley, I am inclined to agree with Wesley.  A proper scientific theory must start by assuming a one and only nature for light, electrons, etc.  Then from this starting assumption derive formulas for, say, the Doppler and aberration effects.  Relativity never does this, therefore it is not a proper scientific theory.  The end formulae that it produces (by using arbitrary procedures (for example:  by jumping from wave to particle and vice versa) so as to arrive at the known end result) are mere rules-of-thumb which (sometimes) seem to work, almost like the SantaClaus theory of Christmas gifts (always) seems to work.  Relativity thus having grown to be a huge ocean of confusion, there is no simple purely mathematical contradiction that will decisively impress a newcomer.  The actual best argument that I have been using in my 22-year sad experience from my struggle is (as I explained in my "Problems With Galileo" Letter published in Nature in May 1993, and also in the enclosed paper "A Physicist Experiments With Physical Studies") this:  Einstein rejected heliocentrism and adopted a position which is very close to the position of the Vatican Inquisition that condemned Galileo.

   A simple, obvious, and stark mathematical difficulty in quantum electrodynamics was identified by Dirac many decades ago and you will find it in the Section "A Physicist Experiments With Mathematical Studies" of the enclosed paper "A Physicist Experiments With Physical Studies".

   Also enclosed is my (unpublished) book Dis-Inventing Certainty which makes all the above (and many more) arguments at some length and in some detail.  In fact CHAPTER VI "Translation and rotation sensors" and CHAPTER VII "The optical translational velocimeter" (and maybe other sections) are eminently suitable for the Bologna 1999 Proceedings, and (space permitting) you may like to use them as separate articles.

Yours sincerely

28 August 1999

Theo Theocharis
200A Merton Road,
London SW18 5SW



Subject:         Re: request
   Date:         Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:50:14 +0400
   From:         "M. Chubey" <>
     To:         "Umberto Bartocci" <>

                          Dear Umberto,

In your last e-mail letter  of Aug. 10 there was no information whether you received my letter with the answer to your questions about stellar
aberration or not. This is the third mail I am sending to you after Bologna.
In answer to your mail of Aug.10 I must say, that I totally agree with the
words by Wesley, which you quoted. Although there is no word «horrendous» in my English dictionary, so I imagine he means « horrific» or «horrible». [...]

               Yours most sincerely. Svetlana.


3 November 1998

Dear Umberto,

Thanks for your letter of 28 October 1998.

It is, indeed, an iksome chore to write in a foreign language; but English has become, perhaps unfortunately, the international language, especially in science and technology. Relax and do not worry about any errors you might make: as no ono cares in English.

As has been empirically proven by Roemer, Bradley. Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, Conklin and Marinov the observed oneway velocity of energy propagation of light is in fact variable, depending on the absolute velocity of the observer v, such that  c* = c - v , where c is the oneway velocity of the energy propagation of light relative to absolute space or the stationary luminiferous ether. ‘Special relativity’, denying such obvious simple empirical facts, is just silly! [...]
Obviously "special relativity" is nonsense, as has been thorougly and amply demonstrated by countless experiments (such as Marinov’s experiments using the anisotropy of the velocity of light to measure the absolute velocity of the closed laboratory)!! [...]
The nature of light propagation is rather well understood - although sometimes it is involved (see my ADVANCED FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS book). The velocity of the lab relative to the stationary luminiferous ether is not "rather disputable". It has been firmly established by Sagnac, Marinov, Michelson-Gale, Conklin and indirectly by Monstein-Wesley (reprint enclosed). The absolute velocity of the lab is about 320 km/s in a direction indicated in the enclosed reprint. You should at least study Marinov’s brilliant "coupled mirrors" experiment...

27 March 1999

Dear Umberto,

Thanks for your letter of 8 March with the Announcement of the Bologna Conference and your two papers.
In the Announcement I would like to take exception to the claim that the "majority" of physicists still believe in "special relativity". According to my actual pole, sampling over 100 physicists beliefs, less than 5 percent still believe in "special relativity". Why discuss a dead issue? Why beat a dead horse?

Enclosed is my one page comment against ether theories.

In your letter you make the strange claim that "special relativity" can explain the "old" stuff, the "empirical facts", of Roemer, Bradley, Sagnac, etc. - whereas, in fact, "special relativity" flatly and explicitly contradicts these facts!
The many measurements of the absolute velocity of the solar system, and thus the Earth, indicate an absolute velocity of over 300 km/s. Slowly varying (or static) effects are adequately expalined without reference to absolute space or absolute velocity. Since most of the effects that do depend on the basolute velocity of the Earth are second order
v^2/c^2 10^-6 ; and since no one looks for these effects (the Monstein Wesley experiment is an exception); these effects are generaly simply ignored. The first order of v/c   10^-3 electrodynamic effects have been observed by Roemcr, Bradley, Sagnac, Conk1in, Marinov, etc. etc. And, of courrse, the Maxwell theory is wrong in general for many reasons, as discussed in my ADVANCED FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS
book, as well as in my CLASSICAL QUANTUM THEORY book. I enclosed still another empirical example of the failure of the Mxwell theory. [...]
The failure of the Maxwell theory in so many ways is already ample proof of the failure of the "Lorentz transformation" or "Lorentz invariance" as you say. No extra experiment is needed - although welcome...


Generally ether theories are simply preposterous fantasies. The vacuum is supposed te be filled with all sort of real or imaginary particles, fluids, solids, or fields with all sort of real or imaginary properties governed by all sort of real or imaginary laws. No two believers in an ether ever believe in the same ether. Although empty space or a vacuum reveals no physical properties; ethers are supposed to explain any end everything. There being no evidence for nothing, ether theorist never have to run the risk of being proved wrong.

Plato believed in a space-filling fluid plenum. Newton, not liking action-at-a-distance, speculated that the inward flow of a fluid produced gravitational attraction. Leibniz had his monads. Maxwell believed in a super elastic solid ether for light propagation. Dirac invented an ether with particles and antiparticles that could have negative kinetic energies. He was insanely convinced that he "discovered" the positron. Etc. Etc.

Despite the absurdities of all of these proposed ethers, a preferred absolute rest frame pervading all space exists. This absolute space makes its presence known locally and instantaneously. The oneway velocity of energy propagation of light is c with respect to absolute space. The fixed celestial sphere implies a universal cosmological limit velocity measured with respect to absolute space. The frame in which the 2.7°K cosmic background is isotropic defines absolute space. The unique gamma factor, g = 1/Ö1-v^2/c^2, in neomechanics reveals a unique particle velocity v measured with respect to absolute space. The inertial force, mass times acceleration, defines an absolute nonaccelerating frame identical to the fixed celestial sphere. Is there something physical (an ether), that is at rest, and that pervades all space to account for absolute space?
Moreover, does the fact that physical fields can be defined, such as the gravitational field or the electric field, at a point in absolute space, independent of any original source or final sink, mean that the point in absolute space contains something physical (an ether) that registers these fields?

Perhaps there is an ether; but there is no empirical evidence.

4 July 1999

Dear Umberto,

Thanks for your letter of 5 June 1999 with the enclosed material.

Contrary to your apparent belief, "special relativity" presents obvious horrendous mathematical contradictions and errors, as pointed out by thousands of individuals since 1905 onward. But even worse, correct mathematical manipulations of false physical premises, that contradict empirical fact (such as the claimed constancy of the velocity of light independent of the velocity of the observer) does not mean that the correct mathematical conclusions are correct physical conclusions. [...]
I find your poster to malign Marinov highly improper. You cannot take the highly emotional, slanted, biased, and unfounded opinions of "special relativity’’ fanatics, such as Bergmann, Maddox, Feshbach, and editors of orthodox journals to prove that Marinov was wrong! You cannot cite the opinions of Cardinals of the Catholic Church to prove that atheism is wrong. After all, ‘‘special relativity" is a religion having nothing to do wit science (except for its totaly unwarranted claims).
Your first paper entitled "About Bradley’s aberration" involves complicated ad hoc notions about an ether. It does not interest me. One can explain anything at all once one introduces an arbitrary ad hoc personal "ether". There are as many different "ethers" proposed as there are authors proposing them.
In your second paper entitled "About Roemer observations" you insist that "special relativity" with its mystical, never confirmed "time dilation" be considered seriously. Why? Such ad hoc nonsense without any firm empirical basis needs to be ignored!...

4 August 1999

Dear Umberto,

Thanks for your recent letters and the enclosures.

   Unfortunately I can not share your highly emotional conviction that "special relativity"’is "true". You sound as though you have "seen the light" and you now have "religion"! There are no possible mathematical, logical, nor experimental arguments that I might employ to make you change your mind. You even malign our poor honest deceased friend Marinov, because his results are unpleasant for you. You conveniently ignore the clever experimental strategy that permitted Marinov to readily exceed Zeeman’s accuracy! And now you start to attack me by accusing me of not answering your questions.

   You simply ignore essentially everything that is relevant regarding the absurdity of "special relativity". You ignore the fact that "special relativity" is a mathematical nightmare: The Lorentz transformation does not even form a group in 3 space and 1 time dimension, as it must to be a legitimate representation of space-time! And how is it that twins after fast round trips are each younger than the other? You ignore the fact that "special relativity" postulates, contrary to observational fact, that the observer always sees the oneway velocity of ligth as having the constant value c.
   So in concltision, let us agree not to communicate any further on the subject of "special relativity". Everything has already been said a thonsand times over by hundreds, if not thousands, of authors over almost 1000 years. Nothing further need be said.
                                                                          with best regards

copy to Galeczki

17 September 1999

Dear Umberto.

Thanks for your letter dated 2 August 1999, which arrived here yesterday.
   Sorry if I have misunderstood you. I thought you were renouncing your former beliefs to now embrace "special relativity".
   I disagree with your claim that "there are many misunderstandings about relativistic concepts in our anti-relativistic group". The misunderstandings that I am aware of are in the pro-relativistic group.
   Your recent papers presenting pro-relativistic arguments are, of course, flagrantly "counter productive for our cause against Einstein’s approach to physics". Such arguments have already been presented, discussed, and rebutted numerous times in the literature over the last 94 years. There is no need to publicize such arguments today. Everytime you present or mention any pro-relativity arguments, or the word "Einstein", as in your papers, you are automatically giving support to "special relativity" as a theory worthy of serious consideration. Total silence along with total rejection is the only strategy that can be used today to bring the silly "special relativity" craze to its final end!
   Your claim in your paper "Most common misunderstandings..." that "special relativity" can explain observations is ridicolous. For example, in order to explain the observed behavior of light you find it necessary to introduce a preferred frame of reference, that you call incorrectly "an inertial frame" (a frame with zero absolute acceleration) instead of calling it "absolute space" or the frame of the fixed luminiferous ether (a frame with zero absolute velocity), which automatically contradicts "special relativity" from the very outset. You misrepresent "special relativity". Only relative frames are admissible in "special relativity".
   Thus for the case of the Bradley’s aberration angle a for stars viewed 90° to the ecliptic you accept the formula tg(a) = v/(cÖ1-v^2/c^2), where v is the velocity of the Earth relative to the Sun and the fixed stars, that establishes a preferred reference rame! To be consistent with "special relativity" only the relative velocity u between the source star and the Earth can be used. [...]
"Special relativity" thus predicts that Bradley’s aberration angle is different for different stars. For faster stars relative to the Earth the aberration circle should be larger - a readily observable effect for some distant galaxies. No such effect is observed! It is your own drastic "misunderstanding" of "special relativity" that is not helping "this sacrosanct fight" against "speial relativity".
   I hope you can appreciate why I thought that you had "seen the light" and accepted "special relativity" as correct after all. Only a true believer could put forward such totally inadequate weak superficial arguments in favor of "special relativity" as you have done. [...]
   Moreover, why do you wish to make the pro-relativity assertion that "the greatest majority of physicists" accept "special relativty"? I find that almost no physicist believes in "special relativity" anymore. For example, in my poll of 100 senior physicists not one believed in "special relativity". Generally it is only uneducated nonphysicists who still believe.
   If you are sincerely against "special relativity", I strongly recommend that you cease writing pro-relativity papers and that you write pro-absolute space-time papers and simply ignore "special relativity" altogether!...

Weiherdammstrasse 24
78176 Blumberg - Germany
Tel.: 07702-658