Breaking Through Editorial: The Einstein
Myths Of Space, Time, and Aether
Published July-August, 2001 In Infinite Energy Magazine,
by Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.
most celebrated scientist of the twentieth century, remains an icon
of the power of human reason to penetrate mysterious nature. For
billions of people who have been taught the essence of his relativity
theories, he changed (or muddled) their very conceptions of time
and space. He destroyed the common sense concept of a universal
now the absolute simultaneity of events in different relatively
moving reference frames. Physicists grant Einstein full credit for
having abolished, at least while his influence has reigned, the
pervading "luminiferous aether," which was the medium
for the transmission of light waves universally accepted in
the nineteenth century.
Einstein's stature extend far into the twenty-first century? Not
likely. Enduring will be his justified fame for:
1) explaining the Brownian movement (the visible jostling
of particles in liquid suspension from molecular buffeting), which
effectively ended the debate about the existence of atoms;
2) his quantum explanation of the photoelectric effect
(for which he won the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics); and
3) his well-known social conscience and beliefs in
what has been called "cosmic religion." He is also justly
famous for his extreme displeasure with the probabilistic underpinnings
of quantum mechanics. ("The theory yields much, but it hardly
brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced
that He does not play dice." from a 1926 Einstein letter to
But believers in Einstein's infallibility will be
lucky if the physicist's relativity theories survive beyond 2005,
the 100th anniversary of his so-called annus mirabilis (1905),
the year in which his Special Theory of Relativity and two other
major works were published in Germany's Annalen der Physik.
For all their apparent predictive power, Einstein's
relativity theories are deeply flawed, as the critical papers in
this first of two Infinite Energy special "Einstein
Reconsidered" issues will demonstrate formally. Einstein criticism
is, of course, not new. (We are obviously not referring to Nazi-inspired,
anti-Semitic tracts against relativity that were published in the
1920s, which disparaged his relativity theory as "Jewish science"
or worse.) There are many sources of technical critiques of Einstein's
work, such as the dissident journals Galilean Electrodynamics,1
Physics Essays,2 Apeiron,3 Journal
of New Energy,4 etc., as well as books by thoughtful
critics: Harold Aspden,5 Petr Beckmann,6 Peter
and Neal Graneau,7 Ronald Hatch,8 Herbert
Ives,9 Thomas Phipps, Jr.,10 and Franco Selleri,11
to name but a few. There is even an organization, the Natural Philosophy
Alliance (NPA),12 which holds regional and national meetings
devoted to critiquing modern physics, especially Einsteinian relativity.
This community of dissidents and publications has been completely
ignored by a self-satisfied Physics Establishment, which preserves
its power and prestige, in part by mystifying veritable "scientific
saints," such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking.
What is very new in Einstein criticism, however, is
a body of emerging experimental evidence for an energetic aether,
which could be tapped to run electrical machines and generate anomalous
heat. Actually, it is the re-emergence of this evidence for
an energetic aether after it was rejected by officialdom in the
1940s and 1950s. Also, a handful of theorists have come to believe
that aether-based models of subatomic structures are necessary to
explain the anomalies in the cold fusion/low-energy nuclear reaction
field. The last issue of Infinite Energy featured the landmark
article by Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa, "The Reproducible
Thermal Anomaly of the Reich-Einstein Experiment Under Limit Conditions"
(p. 12). This told of Albert Einstein's inappropriate explaining-away
of an important thermal anomaly associated with Faraday cages (metal
boxes) after the phenomenon was brought to his attention in early
1941 by Wilhelm Reich. If this and related electrical anomalies
evidencing mass free charge from an energetic aether are
real, as I for one am reasonably sure they are, then it is clear
that the standard conceptions of physics, particularly Einstein's
relativity theories, cannot be correct. This, despite their elegant
foundation in only a few postulates, such as the relativity principle
relating specifically to electromagnetism (which Einstein borrowed
from Henri Poincaré) and the supposed constancy of the speed
of light in vacuum with respect to any observer, which was his own
Einstein himself at various times had expressed doubts about
the edifice of modern physics that he had helped to create
witness the remarks that follow. Perhaps his most serious
expression of doubt came in a 1954 letter, the year before he died,
to his friend Michel Besso: "I consider it quite possible that
physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e. on continuous
structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in
the air, gravitation theory included, and of the rest of modern
physics."13 Biographer Abraham Pais hastens to excuse
this slip from contemporary certainty about relativity theory, claiming
that virtually all physicists think that this self-assessment at
the end of Einstein's life was "unreasonably harsh." But
just a few years earlier (1948), in an introduction to a popularized
book about relativity, Einstein was also circumspect about physics,
in a more general sense: ". . .the growth of our factual knowledge,
together with the striving for a unified theoretical conception
comprising all empirical data, has led to the present situation
which is characterized notwithstanding all successes
by an uncertainty concerning the choice of basic theoretical concepts."14
In my estimation, Einstein was a person much more
cautious about dogmatic expression than those who have claimed invincibility
for his relativity theories. In a letter to J. Lee in 1945, Einstein
wrote: "A scientific person will never understand why he should
believe opinions only because they are written in a certain book.
Furthermore, he will never believe that the results of his own attempts
On the other hand, Dr. James DeMeo has unearthed ambiguities
in Einstein's reaction to the threatening experimental results from
Dr. Dayton C. Miller, who in June 1933 published in Reviews of
Modern Physics, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination
of the Absolute Motion of the Earth."16 In the present
issue, DeMeo (p. 72) provides an outstanding critique of the Miller
work and its apparently glib rejection by others, such as Einstein's
biographers, who dismiss Miller's work outright. Though Miller's
extensive experimental work is not crucial to Einstein criticism,
Einstein's and others' reaction to it is very telling.
Ian McCausland, in "Anomalies in the History of Relativity"
(p. 19), traces some of the historical reasons for Einstein's rapid
rise to dominate the world of physics, following the eclipse observations
by Eddington and others in May 1919. These were widely believed
to have confirmed Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (1916),
which extended the 1905 Special Relativity Theory (SRT) to the realm
of gravity and formulated a geometrization of space-time curvature
as gravity's "explanation." From Time magazine
(December 31, 1999, p. 58), this historical truth is acknowledged:
"Einstein, hitherto little known, became a global celebrity
and was able to sell pictures of himself to journalists and send
the money to a charity for war orphans. More than a hundred books
were written about relativity within a year."
But as McCausland reveals, the 1919 eclipse observations
were flimsy, indeed, and were in no sense a validation of General
Relativity. But from that point on, it was impossible to stop the
Einstein juggernaut, even in the face of alternative theories to
relativity and experimental observations which contradicted it.
Today, some physicists seem to believe that Special Relativity has
been elevated to the level of fact, not theory criticism
of it is neither allowed nor respected. By implication, those who
do criticize it are foolish incompetents. Witness Caltech
Professor David L. Goodstein in his video-taped lecture, "Atoms
to Quarks," part of "The Mechanical Universe and Beyond"
video physics lecture series (generally an excellent overview of
conventionally accepted physics):
. . .there's a point of view that says that the
only way that science can make progress is by showing that theories
are wrong. The argument goes like this: It's impossible to prove
that a theory is right no matter how many experiments agree with
it, but if one single experiment disagrees with it, then
the theory must be wrong. Well, that itself is a theory
of knowledge, which is wrong! Because, there are theories in science,
which are so well verified by experience that they become
promoted to the status of fact. One example is the Special
Theory of Relativity it's still
called a theory for historical reasons, but it is in reality a
simple, engineering fact, routinely used in the design of giant
machines, like nuclear particle accelerators, which always work
perfectly. Another example of that sort of thing is the theory
of evolution. These are called theories, but they are in reality
among the best established facts in all of human knowledge.
No one who calls himself a scientist should ever
declare that any theory is beyond future revision, even drastic
revision, no matter how solid the support for the theory may seem
to him. Goodstein has fallen into the trap of so many physicists
today: They confuse the apparent mathematical fit of several or
many of a theory's descriptive formulae with the right to conclude
that the theory must be fundamentally correct and without contradiction.
Those apparent contradictions that are admitted, are patched
over with ad hoc arguments to save the epicyclic masterpiece.
For example, Special Relativity can't properly deal with extended
or rigid bodies (i.e. real bodies), though it is seemingly
fine for point-particles. See comments about that topic in this
issue by Thomas Phipps (p. 37) and William Cantrell (p. 12).
The certainty with which the physics establishment
reveres Einstein's relativity theories has become a dominant feature
of the intellectual milieu of our age. More examples: A brief passage
from Marcia Bartusiak's Einstein's Unfinished Symphony:17
"'The worship of Einstein, it's the only reason we're here
[working on an expensive federally funded device, LIGO, to test
General Relativity by trying to detect gravity waves], if you want
to know the truth,' says Rainer Weiss of MIT. 'There was this incredible
genius in our midst, in our own lifetime. . .There's a mystique.'"
Ronald W. Clark, one of Einstein's most illustrious
biographers, wrote, ". . .the unqualified acceptance and the
experimental verification that had long ago put the Special Theory
beyond all dispute were still lacking here [for General Relativity].18
Special Relativity "beyond all dispute"? Such incautious
It is well known that Time magazine emblazoned
Albert Einstein on its December 31, 1999 cover, designating him
"Person of the Century." Inside that issue he was called
"first among the century's giants," "its greatest
scientific genius," "the person who, for better or worse,
personified our times and will be recorded in history as having
the most lasting significance," "a symbol of all the scientists,"
"the world's first scientific supercelebrity," "the
century's greatest thinker," and even ". . .the patron
saint of distracted schoolkids."
Time et al. should have heeded this sentiment
by Einstein himself:
"It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste,
to select a few individuals for boundless admiration, attributing
superhuman powers of mind and character to them. This has been
my fate, and the contrast between the popular assessment of my
powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque."
(From a 1921 interview with a Dutch newspaper, reprinted in Reference
15, p. 8.)
Next in line for sainthood in physics has been Stephen
Hawking, whose involvement with virtually mystical (unproved but
highly mathematized "radiating black holes") has catapulted
his A Brief History of Time book's sales into the high seven-figure
range. In his "Brief History of Relativity" for Time's
Einstein glorification issue, he declares that Einstein "cut
through the ether and solved the speed-of light problem once and
for all." Hawking states, "I still get two or three letters
a week telling me Einstein was wrong. Nevertheless, the theory of
relativity is now completely accepted by the scientific community,
and its predictions have been verified in countless applications."
This shows that even scientific "saints" such as Hawking,
are fallible. Correction for Dr. Hawking: Just as the physics establishment
refuses to fairly judge the cold fusion/low-energy nuclear reaction
experiments of recent vintage, the historical record back to the
turn of the century overflows with relativity-falsifying experiments
that are marginalized as "unimportant" just as
no doubt are those Einstein-critical letters which Hawking likely
does not read. Time magazine's editorializing suggested that
Einstein's reputation would endure at least one thousand years.
Hawking was much more bold: "The equations of general relativity
are his best epitaph and memorial. They should last as long as the
The hyperbolic adulation heaped on Einstein's achievements
might have been a hint that something was seriously amiss. Personally,
I had been brow-beaten into unquestioning belief in Special Relativity,
until in the 1990s I began to question much that is taken for granted
by the physics establishment and its army of journalist sychophants.
Note these commentaries in books that I have examined over the years:
". . .all barriers are surmounted by a superhuman
endeavor which up to now has withstood all tests and attacks.
This is the story of relativity."(1954)19
"Einstein's special and general theories of
relativity have permanently changed our view of space and time
"The intellectual culture of our time cannot
be fully understood without taking into account the impact of
the this theory. Not only electrodynamics of moving bodies, but
every physical theory that has been formulated since them has
had to confront Einstein's revolutionary changes in notions of
space and time." (1992)21
Perhaps the best interpreter of this institutionalized
arrogance has been Thomas Phipps.10 This passage from
his paper in this issue bears repeating: "Toward the end of
his life Einstein remarked that he wouldn't want to be starting
over again. He died in 1955, at which time he didn't know the half
of it. Had he lived another fifty years, he wouldn't have wanted
to start to be starting over. For by that time the character of
physics had changed: The Einstein doctrines had been set in concrete
and the kind of heretical departure from the status quo that his
special relativity theory (SRT) originally represented had become
'dissidence' despised, ridiculed, and banned from the literature
by all properly indoctrinated, right thinking physicists. In that
short but fateful interval of time Albert Einstein had become the
new Claudius Ptolemy and the little world of professional physics
had voluntarily condemned itself to a thousand years of trimming
down the great world to fit into a bed of 1905 philosophical truth."
To all this Einstein might have replied with good
humor, as he did to a friend in 1930, "To punish me for my
contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself."15
Conservation of Paradox
There are many reasons to be concerned about the persistence of
the Relativity theory's aura of invincibility. It introduced a permanent
sense of paradox and confusion about time and its relation to space.
(If such paradox were necessary, we could live with it "philosophical
taste" is not the fundamental issue in Relativity criticism.)
Relativity allowed such probable fictions as Big Bang cosmology
and "black holes" to exist if there is no space-time,
only time and space, then there is no possibility of expanding space
and time from a singularity at the "beginning of time."
Most important is Einsteinian relativity's totally unwarranted abolition
of the aether and all that an aether might imply: just possibly,
the aether might be a source of energy; it might be a transmission
medium for barely imaginable things; and, horror of horrors, it
might have something to do with the functioning of life itself,
as Wilhelm Reich had seemed to find in his experiments. These speculations
aside, there simply never was a good reason for throwing out the
aether. It had been the plenum and medium for light waves to wave,
once in the nineteenth century it began to be more accepted that
light did indeed have wave-like properties. Earlier, Isaac Newton
had insisted that light consisted of tiny corpuscles, and his arguments
had dominated for over a century. Then in the early twentieth century
there emerged with the birth of Quantum Mechanics a chimeric version
of light as both wave and particle. Precisely what
light is, how it or some essence travels across space, and how it
is emitted and absorbed are still matters subject to experiment
The spirit in which Einstein put forth Special Relativity
is best captured in his statement, "Physical concepts are free
creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely
determined by the physical world." (1938, in a book with his
associate Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics.) A bad
beginning, or so it transpired, to have placed a bet on a mental
construct without tethering it firmly to the experiments of others.
His theory, which (it was later said) attempted to explain
the experimental record of the late nineteenth century by a novel
combination of postulates, was but one of several possible theoretical
alternatives that might have preserved invariance of physical
laws within frames of reference moving at constant relative velocity
(see William Cantrell's "Commentary on Maxwell's Equations
and Special Relativity," (p. 12). Heinrich Hertz, Hendrick
A. Lorentz, and Henri Poincaré had already developed mathematical
structures that could have been applied more judiciously over a
longer period of time to evolve an appropriate and non-paradoxical
theory to deal with the admitted non-invariance of Maxwell's equations.
Instead, Einstein with his two postulates made what amounted to
an untested, brilliant gamble or guess. He proudly termed it a "free
creation of the human mind" so ambiguously connected
with past experiment to the extent that historians continue to debate
what Einstein knew or did not know of Michelson-Morley et al.
and when did he know it.22,23 Einstein's lucky guess
applied the sledgehammer of the Lorentz transformation (the multiplying
= (1-v2/c2)-1/2), where v is the
relative velocity of two inertial frames) to time and space. When
the world of physics prematurely latched onto this "ingenious"
formalism, the rush-to-judgment bypassed the careful consideration
The several alternatives to SRT, which are by now
substantially developed, do no violence to our basic concepts of
time and space as distinct entities. As William Cantrell states
eloquently: "Einstein's SRT tampers with space and time in
order to force the speed of light to be constant with respect
to all observers. And it pays the price. The theory is reminiscent
of a balloon animal. If squeezed at one end, it expands at the other,
yielding an overall conservation of paradox." And as the Correas
point out in their paper in this issue, "Consequence of the
Null Result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment: The Demise of the
Stationary Aether, The Rise of Special Relativity, and the Heuristic
Concept of the Photon" (p. 47), the Albert Michelson-Edward
Morley experiment of 1887 (at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio)
appeared to rule out a static aether. But certainly, this experiment
did not eliminate a dynamic aether of some kind that might
form something like an "aetherosphere," which was, at
least near the surface of our planet, nearly in rotation with it.
It is not the aim of this short editorial space to
discourse extensively on the manifold failings of relativity theory,
or to detail the alternative theories to SRT which address these.
The papers and references we have noted and selected for this issue
and the next serve that function well; they are among the best of
that technical criticism, but they are just a beginning. (Our apologies
to all those other critics of relativity whose excellent work is
not showcased.) Our central objective is to show that such criticism
does exist, that it is reasoned, and that there have long been open
questions about relativity, which have been deliberately ignored
by the Physics Establishment. We hope that this coverage will inspire
those who remain free-thinking and who are not intimidated by the
prevailing intellectual tyranny that passes for physics today. We
hope especially to reach the uncorrupted
young students of physics who may help pioneer new ways of
experiment and understanding.
Yet here lies a central problem and a paradox in its
own right. Some critics of Einsteinian relativity have correctly
observed that their criticism is weak, because it has lacked a generally
accepted replacement theory that could satisfy most critics.
There are, to be sure, too many competing dissident theories. Thus,
the single rallying point of the mainstream, SRT, has triumphed
by default. Yet, in striving for a new corrective point of view,
one should be cautious not to sanction a new dogma.
The Path Beyond Relativity
There is no question that in the late nineteenth century physics
needed to try to find a theory that would extend the relativity
principle of Newtonian mechanics to optical phenomena and electromagnetism.
Einstein's bold, but flawed synthesis seemed to be workable. That
its formulae led to excellent quantitative fit in some experimental
regimes concealed its all too apparent logical inconsistencies and
inability to encompass other experiments. The physics establishment
fell in love with the idea that a lone genius, Einstein, had stood
on the shoulders of others to come up with the radical synthesis
that abolished the aether and conventionally understood space and
time. This elevated the profession of physics by establishing an
elite group, which boasted that it could comprehend the spatialization
of time and the many paradoxes inherent to SRT.
Many may be surprised to learn that the most perceptive
critics of Einstein's relativity theories employ rational methods
of scientific argument and analysis; they have performed the essential
mathematical treatments. It is natural that newcomers may have misgivings
about these critics, because they have been bludgeoned with what
have been claimed to be iron-clad proofs of SRT predictions, such
as length contraction and time dilation. In truth, the experimental
record contains no proof of length contraction and it has
a highly muddied collection of "proofs" of time dilation
per se. No, the existence of altered decay of subatomic particles
such as muons does not prove time dilation, no matter how often
that canard is repeated in textbooks (see, for example the critique
by Cantrell). Even the famous E=mc2 formulation, supposedly
one of Einstein's most original concepts, has alternative derivations,
some of which were in an advanced state by the time SRT burst forth
onto the scene. And, SRT's famous mass increase with velocity can
be viewed quite differently. The infamous "twin paradox"
can be abolished. Not only that, there is no reason why advanced
space ships could not far exceed light velocity (see Dr. Cynthia
Kolb Whitney's papers and conclusions, referenced and summarized
on p. 65-66). She notes, ". . .long-distance space travel is
seen to be not impossible in principle. We are now limited not by
the speed of light, but rather by the speed of thought, which the
present author submits is actually infinite when thought is liberated
The late Herbert E. Ives of Bell Laboratories, one of the most illustrious
of Einstein critics, published one of his many perceptive articles
in the Journal of the Optical Society of America, "Genesis
of the Query, "Is There an Ether?,'"24 which
we have reprinted in this issue (p. 30). In this short piece he
appears to shred the illogic of Einstein's second postulate (the
supposed requirement for the constancy of the velocity of light
measured by all observers), and he defines the false constraints
(no use of moving clocks to synchronize other clocks), and other
problematic assumptions of Einstein's SRT. No matter you will be
hard-pressed to find mention of Ives' compendious work in any of
the biographies of Einstein and books about relativity. Perhaps
the well-documented approach of Ives' should become a starting point
for relativity criticism (see introduction to Ives' work, (p. 29).
It must be admitted that most alternatives to Einstein's
relativity theories seem to focus on mathematical alterations to
eliminate the theories' inconsistencies with the experimental record.
But it now appears probable to this reviewer that something much
more profound has been missed by most of the critics the possibility
of new experimental investigations heretofore overlooked.
This new direction is being pioneered by Dr. Paulo and Alexandra
Correa, whose laboratory work builds upon the experimental findings
of Wilhelm Reich in the middle of the last century and casts their
experimental findings in a formalized theory with full mathematical
support. (See their newly released materials, available on a new
website www.aetherometry.com which was to appear shortly after this
issue went to press.) Their new publication stream began with their
paper in the last issue of Infinite Energy,25
continues with their second paper in this issue, and with another
Einstein-related paper to appear in our next issue ("The Sagnac
and Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiments: The Tribulations of General
Relativity with Respect to Rotation").
They summarize the essence of their new direction
in their current paper: "The authors propose that Einstein's
heuristic hypothesis be taken as factual the result being that electromagnetic
radiation becomes secondary to an energy continuum that is neither
electromagnetic nor amenable to four-dimensional reduction. It follows
that the second principle of SR only applies to photon production,
which is always and only a local discontinuity. It does not apply
to non-electromagnetic radiation, nor, a fortiori, to the
propagation of energy responsible for local photon production."
[Editor's note: Einstein's "second principle" is
the postulate of the supposed constancy of light speed in vacuo
to all observers.]
In another profound assertion, which goes directly
to the heart of unraveling the mystery of E=mc2, they
state: "We have proposed our own aetherometric analysis of
these type of experiments, where it it shown that the experimental
velocities of massbound charges are predicted by a theoretical model
that does not take recourse to any of the Lorentz transformations.
That means no time dilation and no relativistic mass increase with
acceleration of inertial mass. The inertial mass of a system is
only a measure of its rest energy, unlike what SR proposes it is."
They have contempt for the relativistic and other orthodoxies that
presume to have abolished the aether: "Having become the official
logico-mathematical theory of physics, relativistic orthodoxy, as
much as quantum and wave mechanics, refuses to conceive of any form
of energy that is not electromagnetic or associated with mass-energy.
To speak of the aether these days only brings smiles of contempt
from institutional physicists they have already found something
better: the intangible 'swarming of virtual particles'." So,
will the aether return with a vengeance and an Aether Energy Age
soon begin? We shall see.
Finally, what shall we take as the most important
thing to be learned from the almost century-long Einstein hiatus
in physical theory? As with cold fusion and LENR, which is for all
practical purposes the return of alchemy proved this time
in scientific studies is that even the most sacrosanct of ideas,
Einsteinian Relativity, can be dead wrong. In fact, the late Richard
Feynman may have said it best when he identified what he considered
to be the most important implication of Relativity, though in the
context in which he voiced this, he certainly did not mean that
he thought Relativity itself was wrong!:
What then, are the philosophic influences
of the theory of relativity? If we limit ourselves to influences
in the sense of what kind of new ideas and suggestions
are made to the physicist by the principle of relativity, we could
describe some of them as follows. The first discovery is, essentially
that even those ideas which have been held for a very long time
and which have been very accurately verified might be wrong. .
.we now have a much more humble point of view of our physical
laws everything can be wrong!26
As regards physics of the late twentieth century and
early twenty-first, Feynman (a.k.a. "Genius," so-called
by author James Gleick) was profoundly wrong about the "humble"
part. But indeed, almost everything was wrong, and we must
begin anew to correct it, with arduous experiment and new theory.
1. Galilean Electrodynamics, published by Space Time Analyses,
Ltd., 141Rhinecliff Street, Arlington, MA 02476-7331.
2. Physics Essays, Physics Essays Publication, c/o
ALFT, Inc., 189 Deveault St., Unit 7, Hull, Quebec J8Z 1S7, Canada.
3. Apeiron, C. Roy Keys, 4405 St.-Dominique, Montreal, Quebec,
H2W 2B2, Canada.
4. Journal of New Energy, 3084 East 3300 South, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84158-0639.
5. Aspden, Harold. http://www.energyscience.co.uk
6. Beckmann, P. 1987. Einstein Plus Two, The Golem Press,
7. Graneau, P. and Graneau, N. 1993. Newton Versus Einstein:
How Matter Interacts with Matter, Carlton Press, New York (available
through Infinite Energy).
8.Hatch R. 1992. Escape from Einstein, Kneat Kompany, Wilmington,
9. Ives, H.E. 1979. The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers,
Edited with comments by Richard Hazelett and Dean Turner, The Devin-Adair
Company, Greenwich, Connecticut. (Contact Infinite Energy
10. Phipps, T.E., Jr. 1986. Heretical Verities, Classical
Non-Fiction Library, Urbana, IL (available through Infinite Energy).
11. Selleri, F. (Ed.) 1998. Open Questions in Relativistic Physics,
12. Natural Philosophy Alliance, P.O. Box 14014, San Louis Obispo,
13. Pais, A. 1982. Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life
of Albert Einstein, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, p.
14. Barnett, L. 1948, 1957. The Universe and Dr. Einstein,
Harper and Company, New York, p. 10.
15. Calaprice, A. (Ed.) 2000. The Expanded Quotable Einstein,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, p. 14.
16. Miller, D.C. 1933. "The Ether Drift Experiment and the
Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth," Reviews
of Modern Physics, July, Vol. 5, 203-242.
17. Bartusiak, M. 2000. Einstein's Unfinished Symphony: Listening
to the Sounds of Space-Time, Joseph Henry Press, Washington,
D.C., p. 4.
18. Clark, R.W. 1971. Einstein: The Life and Times, World
Publishing Co., New York, p. 624.
19. Coleman, J.A. 1954, 1958. Relativity for the Layman,
New American Library, New York.
20. Weinberg, S. 1992. Dreams of a Final Theory, Pantheon,
21. Renn, J. and Schulmann, R. 1992. Albert Einstein, Mileva
Maric: The Love Letters, Princeton University Press, Princeton,
New Jersey, p. xiii.
22. Holton, G. 1973 and 1978. Thematic Origins of Scientific
Thought, Kepler to Einstein, Harvard University Press.
23. Whittaker, E. 1953. History of the Aether and Electricity,
1900-1926, Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., London.
24. Ives, H.E. 1953. "Genesis of the Query 'Is There and Ether,?'"
J. Optical Soc. of America, Vol. 43, No. 3, March, 1217-218.
25. Correa, P. and Correa, A. 2001. "The Reproducible Thermal
Anomaly of the Reich-Einstein Experiment Under Limit Conditions,"
Infinite Energy, 7, 37, 12-21.
26. Feynman, L. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, MIT, Science
Teaching Center. Vol. 1, 16-1, "Relativity and the Philosophers,"
Other Works Consulted
o Aczel, A.D. 1999. God's Equation: Einstein, Relativity and
the Expanding Universe, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York.
o Born, M. 1962, 1965. Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Dover
Publications, New York.
o Brian, D. 1996. Einstein: A Life, John Wiley & Sons,
o Einstein, A. 1961. Relativity: The Special and General Theory,
Crown Publishers, New York.
o Einstein, A. 1954. Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers,
o Fölsing, A. 1997. Albert Einstein, Penguin Books,
o French, A.P. 1966. "Relativity: An Introduction to
the Special Theory," (Physics, A New Introductory
Course), MIT Science Teaching Center.
o Jammer, M. 1999. Einstein and Religion, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
o Lanczos, C. 1962. Albert Einstein and the Cosmic World Order,
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
o Lightman, A. 2000. Great Ideas in Physics, McGraw-Hill,
o Lorentz, H.A. 1923. The Principle of Relativity: A Collection
of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity,
(Dover edition, 1952).
o Pauli, W. 1958, 1981. Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications,
o Sciama, D.W. 1969. The Physical Foundations of General Relativity,
Doubleday and Company.
o Smith, J. 1965. Introduction to Special Relativity, W.A.
Benjamin, New York.
o Stern, F. 1999. Einstein's German World, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
o Will, C.M. 1986. Was Einstein Right? Putting General Relativity
to the Test, Basic Books, New York.