By Prof. L. Kaliambos (Natural Philosopher in New Energy)

November 21,  2017

Today using in the internet the topic "EXPERIMENTS REJECT RELATIVITY" we see that among a large number of articles written under the influence of relativity there are some dominant articles written under the assumptions that both special and general relativity are valid theories. For example In the article " Criticism of the theory of relativity-Wikipedia" we read: There are still some critics of relativity today, but their opinions are not shared by the majority in the scientific community". Also in the article “This Experiment Famously Tried to Disprove Relativity" we read: "It was a very small effect, which forced Miller to hypothesize that the ether was being carried along by the earth to a large extent, but it was sure it was there.". Here one can see that the criticism is based on the wrong assumption that the concept of ether is correct. In fact, not only the experiment of the Michelson - Morley (1887) rejected the ether but also the experiments of the Doppler effect. For example in the sound waves moving through a medium we measure different results when the observer moves with respect to the source or the source with respect to the observer. However since in the case of photons the ether cannot exist we observe the same energy hν with the same frequency ν in both cases, as in the case of the same energy in a collision of two particles no matter which particle is moving.

Historically, before the development of special relativity (1905) it had been found experimentally by W. Kaufmann (1901) that the mass of high-speed electrons (β-rays) increases with increasing speed. According to the history of special relativity Kaufmann tried to explain his experiment by using the hypothesis of electromagnetic mass introduced by J. J. Thomson and others.(Thomson and Michelson reject Einstein).  In the same way Bucherer in 1909 found experimentally that the increasing mass M at a speed u near the speed of light c of the β-rays with respect to the constant inertial mass Mo of the Newtonian mechanics is given by an equation which is similar to the equation of the theory of special relativity. That is

M/Mo = c/(c2- u2)0.5

Under this condition he believed that he confirmed experimentally, not the hypothesis of the electromagnetic mass, but  the theory of special relativity, because he did not know that the increasing mass of the electron is due to the absorption of the mass defect (like the electromagnetic mass) of the neutron, which was discovered in 1932.

So, after my paper  “Nuclear structure is governed by the fundamental laws of electromagnetism”(2003) I have found that the theory of special relativity is overthrown by the nuclear experiments. Here you can see my presentation of the experiments rejecting Einstein in NCSR "Democritos" (2002). For example in the deuteron the binding energy ΔΕ = 2.2246 MeV becomes the energy hν of the photon, while the mass defect ΔΜ = ΔΕ/c2 becomes the mass m = hν/c2 of the photon. Note that Einstein in his book of 1938 emphasizes that the photon does have mass m because of its energy hν . In the same way when the neutron changes into proton we observe an energy Δw = 1.293 MeV which becomes the energy ΔΕ = 1.293 MeV of the emitting electron. Also we observe a mass defect Δm = mass of 2.53 electrons (like the electromagnetic mass ) which gives the increasing mass ΔΜ of the emitting electron. That is,  ΔΜ = mass of 2.53 electrons. In other words this experiment of the emitting electron confirms the two conservation laws of energy and mass, while the special relativity violates them. (Invalid mass-energy conservation).

Although the experiments of Michelson-Morley (1887) rejected the ether in favour of the Newtonian particles of light (Light Theories), Einstein himself in general relativity (1915) reintroduced the ether. (Contradicting relativity theories). Under this inconsistency the natural philosophers M. Barone and F. Sellery organised the international conference “Frontiers of fundamental physics” (1993), in which I presented  the experiments of the American physicists French and Tessman (1963) who showed the fallacy of Maxwell’s fields.(Invalid Maxwell’s equations). So, in my paper Impact of Maxwell’s equation …” I presented my discovery of dipole photons which invalidate Maxwell’s fields and Einstein’s relativity. Note that the fields violate Newton's third law of simultaneous action and reaction confirmed by the experiments of the Quantum Entanglement. (Quantum Entanglement rejects Einstein).

Here one can see that Einstein is overthrown by Newton's rectangular particles of light, wich led to my discovery of dipolic photons having mass.

It is of interest to note that M. Barone and F. Selleri gave me an award including a disc of the atomic philosopher Democritus , because at that conference I showed that Greek philosophers reject Einstein. Moreover in the preface of the proceedings (1993) they wrote:

“In relativity most people believe that the luminiferous ether of the XIXth century has been ruled out by Michelson-type experiments and by the development of the theory of special relativity. The situation is very different however, since Poincare and Lorentz were both defenders of the existence of ether, and Einstein himself, after 1916 radically modified his previously negative attitude. For example in 1924 he wrote that according to special relativity the ether remains still absolute because its influence on the inertia of bodies.”

Under this inconsistency according to the book of MODERN PHYSICS (page 9) when Michelson and Einstein met briefly in 1931, Michelson remarked that he regretted that his experiment might have been responsible for giving birth to such a “monster” - referring to the theory of special relativity.

Today it is well known that the mass of the neutron is 2.53 electrons heavier than the proton mass, because according to the MODERN PHYSICS (page 452) the neutron mass is equal to the mass of 1838,68 electrons while the proton mass is equal to the mass  of 1836,15 electrons. That is, since the mass of the emitting antineutrino is very small, we observe a mass defect Δm = mass of 2.53 electrons, which gives the increasing mass ΔΜ of the emitting electron.

The same situation we observe also in the experiments of the Compton effect (Correct Compton effect), where the increase of the electron mass ΔΜ is due not to the relative motion (theory of special relativity) but to the law of the absorption of photon (photon - matter interaction), in wich we observe a time dilation and length contraction. (Discovery of length contraction). Finally after my paper “Spin-spin interactions of electrons and also of nucleons create atomic molecular and nuclear structures" (2008) I showed that all experiments of atomic and nuclear physics reject Einstein, because we observe absorption of photons in the systems of non conservative forces. On the other hand in the Newtonian Mechanics of conservative forces we observe always a constant inertial mass, because the absorption of photons is absent. In other words the fundamental laws of the Newtonian Mechanics cannot be overthrown by the theories.

Nevertheless under the influence of the theory of relativity today it is a great difficulty for a large number of physicists to accept the experiments of the beta decay and the law of the absorption of photon, which invalidate relativity.   For example in the “Criticism of the theory of relativity” one reads : “Though some of these criticisms had the support of reputable scientists, Einstein's theory of relativity is now accepted by the scientific community”.

On this point of view in the preface of the proceedings of 1993 M. Barone and F. Selleri wrote: “The Olympia conference Frontiers of fundamental physics was a gathering of about hundred scientists who carry on their research in conceptual important areas of physical science (they do fundamental physics). Most of them were physicists but also historians and philosophers of science were well represented. An important fraction of the participants could be considered heretical because they disagreed with the validity of one or several fundamental assumptions of modern physics”

It is indeed fortunate that after many years of research I have found that Einstein in the opening paragraph of his 1905 paper of special relativity was wrong,  because he believed incorrectly that an observer measures the fallacious electric field E of Maxwell, when an observer is at rest with a conductor and the magnet is in motion. Note that the experiments of Faraday (1831) and of Neumann (1845) showed that the induced EMF is due always to the magnetic force because of the relative motion, no matter what is moving. Nevertheless in 1865  Maxwell in his electromagnetic theory introduced a fallacious electric field E.  In fact according to the laws of Coulomb and Ampere also in the experiments of a rotating charged cylinder the observer always can measure magnetic forces.

Such an inconsistency of special relativity one can read in my paragraph of the proceedings of 1993 (page 421): “This inconsistency of special relativity in electromagnetism can be shown also in one experiment about the magnetic forces inside a rotating charged cylinder. If an observer is rotating with the cylinder (frame S’) he will measure only magnetic forces inside. Electric forces cannot appear, because the electrostatic equations say, there, will be no electric fields inside.”

It is of interest to note that after my papers of 1993, 2003, and 2008, I have found many inconsistencies in special relativity. According to the experiments of Joule (conservation law of energy) and of Lavoisier (conservation law of mass) Einstein in his first paper of 1905 for the explanation of photoelectric effect  used only the first law by writing hν = ΔΕ (Nobel prize 1921), because in 1905 he believed that photons are quanta of Maxwell’s fields without mass. However Soldner in 1801 confirmed the gravitational properties of light predicted by Newton. That is, light consists of dipole photons having a mass m = hν/c2. Under this condition for the interpretation of the photoelectric effect Einstein in 1905 should write the two conservation laws of energy and mass (photon-matter interaction) given by

hν/m =  ΔΕ/ΔΜ = c2

Note that in 1905 Einstein in his second paper (Thesis on molecular sizes) and in his third paper (Brawnian motion) used the laws of Newtonian mechanics.( Wrong and correct Einstein). However in his fourth paper of special relativity he did not follow the law of absorption but the Lorentz hypothesis of relative motion of the electron, which violates the conservation law of mass. In fact we observe an increasing mass ΔΜ of electron not only in beta decay but also in the Compton effect where the increasing mass ΔΜ of the electron is obvious. Under such a wrong idea Einstein in his fifth paper of ΔΕ/ΔΜ = c2 violates the two conservation laws of energy and mass, because he believed that the mass ΔΜ turns into the energy ΔΕ. In fact, Einstein rejects himself, because he abandoned the law of conservation of energy used by him in the interpretation of the photoelectric effect.(Einstein rejects himself).

Unfortunately after the discovery of gravitational waves by LIGO teams (2016) today many physicists under the influence of Einstein's relativity believe incorrectly that the energy of gravitational waves from the black hole collision is due to the remaining three solar masses. In fact, according to the conservation law of energy, the energy of  gravitational waves is due to the gravitational energy of the black hole collision. That is, energy turns into energy like the first paper of Einstein and the Bohr model. (Spacetime ripples of laws). Note that Bohr in 1913 used the conservation law of energy by writing that the energy ΔΕ =13.6 eV of the interaction of the electron and the proton turns into the energy hν = 13.6 eV of the emitting photon.(Nobel prize 1922). To conclude we notice that although the experiments of modern physics reject relativity and confirme the conservation laws of energy and mass, many physicists continue to use relativity which violates the natural laws.