PHYSICS NOTE NO. 3
SUMMARY THEME OF PART III OF THE PHYSICS OF CREATION
Copyright © Harold Aspden, 2001
RELATIVITY AS A DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH
In my writings hitherto I have only been concerned with Einstein’s theory of Relativity to the extent that it stands in the way of acceptance of what I have discovered concerning the properties and role of the aether in regulating the physics of the quantum underworld, the creation of matter and the action of gravity. Here, however, in Part III of this work, at this intermediate stage before delving into the creation of the fundamental particles, I now think it necessary show why Einstein’s theory has nothing whatsoever to offer to our knowledge of physics.
I find it reasonable to present my case in three ways, each the subject of its own LECTURE. It is for the reader to decide which to read first. A reader new to the subject of Einstein’s theory should read LECTURE IIIc first and a reader already familiar with the theory may find it more interesting to read LECTURE IIIa first and then progress to LECTURE IIIb.
LECTURE IIIa dates from 1997 and was published on the author’s web site www.energyscience.co.uk as LECTURE No. 2. It was the first Part of an intended two-pronged attack on Einstein’s theory, but it is only now that I have got around to putting the second Part on record here on this new web site which is intended to segregate the author’s physics pursuits from technology.
LECTURE IIIb is that second Part. It was written initially in 1993 at a time when the author had in mind writing a second edition version of his 1969 book ‘Physics without Einstein’. It is a direct attack on Einstein’s doctrines based on the up-to-date experimental evidence of that 1993 period.
LECTURE IIIc is merely a review of the curious logic and style of presentation used by Einstein to explain his theory to a lay audience. It makes extensive reference to the fifteenth edition of the book ‘Relativity: The Special and General Theory’, authored by Einstein and published in 1961, the preface to that edition being dated June 9th, 1952. This book presumably represented Einstein’s final account of his own theory, the preface to the first edition of the book being dated 1916, and so dating from the time of his basic papers on the General Theory of Relativity.
The book cover of this 164 page work declares that it presents “a clear explanation of the famous theory that brought about the atomic age”. So I take it that what I shall be quoting from its text will be meaningful and relevant to the topic we are here considering, namely ‘The Physics of Creation’.
In this Physics Note I shall only make a few preliminary comments, leaving the bulk of what I have to say for inclusion in the three supporting LECTURES just mentioned that feature as part III of this work on ‘The Physics of Creation’.
The word ‘aether’ does appear in the index of Einstein’s book. It is first referred to as ‘the hypothetical aether of space’ on page 52 where Einstein draws attention to the failure of attempts to detect the existence of ‘aetrher-drift at the Earth’s surface’ and points to Michelson’s ‘decisive’ method as being the ‘most notable of these attempts’. By page 142, towards the end of his book in Appendix V added in 1952, Einstein discusses, as a nineteenth century requirement, the need to ‘introduce a field, that could exist in “empty space” in the absence of ponderable matter.’ He goes on to explain how in the light of this this need ‘one felt compelled, even in space which had hitherto been regarded as empty, to assume everywhere the existence of a form of matter, which was called “aether”.
His discourse over several pages then struggles to convey a message concerning the notion of space as something devoid of matter and matter as something extending everywhere into space by virtue of its ‘field’. By page 152 he concludes by saying:
There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field. Thus Descartes was not so far from the truthwhen he believed he must exclude the existence of an empty space. The notion indeed appears absurd, as long as physical reality is seen exclusively in ponderable bodies. It requires the idea of the field as the representative of reality, in combination with the general principle of relativity, to show the true kernel of Descartes’ idea; there exists no space “empty of field”.
Quite clearly, therefore, Einstein is here declaring that all matter has a field system associated with it that extends into what we, in a popular sense, refer to as ‘space’, but if there is no matter present then space, as such, is empty and not occupied by what a nineteenth century physicist would term the ‘aether’.
This, I feel, amounts to saying that the speed of light in a vacuum surrounding an element of matter is not governed by an ‘aether’ medium but depends instead upon the field system attributable to the presence of matter, and yet I hesitate in thinking this, because I have the impression also that Einstein’s theory requires the constant speed of light to be referenced somehow on the notional observer.
However, it is not for me to try to make sense of Einstein’s ideas. I submit that that is a quite impossible task for anyone to undertake. My task is to show that our understanding of the physics governing our universe can best be based on the results of deciphering physical data gleaned by experiment and which lead to something different from what Einstein has suggested.
The Lectures relevant to this Part III of ‘The Physics of Creation’ will, when written, be listed for access here. These are probably now complete:
to return to the main site index.