Home | Up one level | Previous | Next

Relational Dynamics

Anthony Hollick

Installed 29 Jul 2010 - Latest update 30 Jul 2017.

                              RELATIONAL DYNAMICS

                                     PART I


      The purpose of this work is to provide a unified objective scientific
research programme of atomic, terrestrial and celestial dynamics, which will
be called Relational Dynamics ('RD').  RD aims to provide a full and
accurate world-picture.

      The RD research programme is intended to be soundly based and fully
intelligible.  It aims to be descriptive, explanatory and predictive,
corresponding accurately to the facts.  It owes its inspiration to:

    - Classical Mechanics with full Galileian relativity;

    - to the principle of the invariance of Mass, Length and Time;

    - to a quantum theory based on a ballistic or particle theory of radiated
electromagnetic particles (photons) composed of matter and therefore having
intrinsic mass;

    - and to relational electrical, magnetic, and gravitational forces, which
act over a distance, via fields, with any delay proportional to distance which
may be empirically determined.

    All these elements will be critically examined.  Equipped with Relational
Mechanics, you will be able to do pretty much everything claimed for any and
all of the competing theories, and a good deal more besides.

     The emphasis of this work is constantly upon objective realism: the
deeper actuality of the central order of things and events (what is, and what
actually occurs), rather than upon mere surface (how events might appear to
variously situated "observers").  By way of illustration, consider the
problem of optical illusions: a strict  'observationalist' theory would
assert that _there can be no optical illusions_, as the observation itself
takes priority over any intrinsic properties which the object of observation
may have.  Our objective realist approach asserts that in such cases, the
observations can be corrected in specified ways, to provide real information
on the object of observation. All observations necessarily incorporate

     Computer modelling of physical states, processes and events overcome
some of the most profound problems in theoretical and practical physics; it
is now possible for practical purposes to observe and examine states,
processes and events without altering them by the means of examination; and
we therefore have superb opportunities to compare our theoretical models with
experimental results.  The Car-Parrinello method of molecular modelling -
utilizing classical principles very similar to Relational Dynamics - is a
case in point.  Using Car-Parrinello techniques to model silicon atoms, for
example, the exact melting-point of silicon can be predicted.

      I hope to acknowledge any ideas which I know to be due to others, not
least to provide a context for readers to understand the ideas better.  As is
everyone, I am fallible, so I apologize for any errors of fact or
interpretation.  As Karl Popper says, human knowledge ineluctably proceeds by
means of conjectures and refutations.


 "A simple concept should not be abandoned in favor of a more complex one
until the hard experimental evidence is overwhelming." - Alan D. Krisch.

 "ALL THIS IS A DREAM.  Still, examine it by a few experiments.  Nothing is
too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature, and in
such things as these, experiment is the best test of such consistency." -
Michael Faraday.

 "When ...  mathematicians were laying down more and more elegant roads in
the wrong direction, Faraday spent his time exploring the country to find the
right direction." - Wightman.

 "The Principle of Relativity in its widest sense is contained in the
statement; 'The totality of physical phenomena is of such a character that it
gives no basis for the introduction of the concept of Absolute Motion'; or,
shorter BUT LESS PRECISE: 'There is no Absolute Motion.'" - Albert Einstein.

 "We can reach a satisfactory theory only if we give up the
aether-hypothesis. Then the electromagnetic fields constituting light appear,
no longer as states of a hypothetical medium, but as subsistent structures
(selbstandige Gebilde) which are sent out from the light-source exactly as in
Newton's emission-theory." - Albert Einstein.

 "The only conclusion which ..  appears possible to me is that the aether
does not exist ..; the motion of light is a relative motion like all the
others; ..  only relative velocities play a role in the laws of nature.." -
Walter Ritz.

 "Classical mechanics ...  is everywhere exactly 'right' where its concepts
can be applied." - Werner von Heisenberg.

 "..I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way." - Albert

    I advance Relational Dynamics as that more realistic way.

{F0} A Problem Situation: is there a loss of support for Scientific inquiry?

     I admire the heroic intellectual achievements of so many of the self -
educated philosophers, scientists and technologists over the centuries.  I
would like that tradition to continue, and to be renewed.  I am also more
interested in real science than in mathematical or linguistic byways.  I want
us to have the best available theories to choose from, whether new or not.

     Many science writers have commented on the loss of understanding of -
and the consequent decline in support for - the sciences.  Such a lack of
support is both regrettable and for the most part avoidable.  More
unfortunate is the loss of contact with common-sense and rationality, which
has made many of the theoretical and philosophical positions taken by some
scientists very difficult if not impossible for others to understand, thence
to decide rationally whether or not to accept.  The scientific enterprise
necessarily relates to our exploration of the rationally understandable and
consistent regularities of a self-ordering, emergent and non-deterministic

     The quite erroneous, unnecessary and unhelpful acceptance of ill-formed,
unintelligible or unfounded philosophical ideas; an outmoded positivism; a
mistaken determinism; and an erroneous and avoidable subjectivism and
non-realism in quantum physics, are often mentioned as regrettable.  Some
popular science writers like John Gribbin have even described most of what
they now consider science as "nonsense."  Unsurprisingly, many people are
increasingly reluctant to engage in, finance or support what they are told is
"nonsense."  The lack of support for the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)
project as of 1994 is a case in point.

     (Half a century ago, some National-Socialist ideologues argued quite
absurdly against the ideas of Einstein and others, as "Jewish physics",
supposedly based on "dogma" rather than pragmatic experiment.  (This is even
more absurd in the light of the inductivist character of Einstein's SR).
Actually, Newton ("Hypotheses non fingo") would have been considered Jewish
under National-Socialism.  Our interest should be with the content and
accuracy of the scientific theories themselves, rather than with any
attributes of race, creed, politics or colour of the theories' originators.
There is one - human - science, the result of the independent as well as
interactive scientific activities of human individuals, of all the races,
creeds and colours of humankind).

     I was much influenced by Popper's discussion of the Newtonian and
Euclidean foundations of Kantian ethics.  The years between 1895 and 1905
were a time of extraordinarily chaotic - indeed revolutionary - change in
science.  It is perhaps not coincidental that the breakdown of the classical
liberal international order, and the outbreaks of barbarism in the 20th
Century, occurred after science and cosmology had been increasingly removed
from the realm of commonsense "classical" science and a readily intelligible

    There sometimes seems to have been an inclination to view classical
theory as 'conservative', to be distinguished from supposedly 'progressive'
concepts and opposed on that basis.  Mach's ideas seem to have attracted such
support (after all, Engels espoused positivist methodology).  But Science is
not politics.  I hope that Science will continue to be able to provide
support for the humanitarian and rationalist principles of the Enlightenment.
(And I am also all for liberalism, and for free institutions and the open

 {F1} A note on linguistic usage: Popper's anti-essentialist advice

     We should not take too seriously problems about words and their
meanings. "What must be taken seriously are questions of fact, and assertions
about facts; theories and hypotheses; the problems they solve; and the
problems they raise." (Karl Popper, in his autobiography "Unended Quest"
[1976], p.  19).

     However, a preliminary difficulty we now have in discussing some of
these matters is that the same scientific terminology is sometimes being used
to refer to, define or describe quite different ideas and physical realities;
this is the problem of the "incommensurability of terms", so well described
by Imre Lakatos in his magnificent work, "The Methodology of Scientific
Research Programmes" [1978].

     For example: it is not commonly appreciated that mass, length and time
in any theory of relativistic simultaneity such as Einstein's are not
determinate, intrinsic dimensional qualities, but are treated as entirely
dependent on their relationship to a hypothetical observer or observers:
there would have to be multiple (differing) properties at a single point.
Objects would have to be indefinitely many different dimensions and masses at
once, as well as experiencing differently elapsing time-rates: that is an
inevitable consequence of giving "observed appearances" primacy over the
realism of objective, intrinsic properties.

 {F2} The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes

     In Popper's basic system of scientific method, the working sequence is

     (1) p1 -> (2) tt -> (3) dtp -> (4) ee -> (5) p2

     where p1 is a first problem; tt is a tentative theory to solve 
it; ; dtp is the deduction of (testable) propositions; ee is the 
testing of the deduced propositions by various means, including 
observation and experiment, to find and eliminate any errors; and p2 
is the residual or resulting theoretical problem(s) after preferences 
have been established between competing theories; this procedure may 
be further reiterated as required.

     Good definitions read "from right to left", as Bryan Magee has made
clear.  The sentence "A photon is an emitted electromagnetic particle with an
energy equal to Planck's constant (h) multiplied by frequency (v) in Hz." is
the scientist's effort to answer the question; "What shall we call an emitted
electromagnetic particle with an energy equal to Planck's constant (h)
multiplied by frequency (v) in Hz.?" rather than an answer to the
essentialist question - "What is a photon?"

     For instance; in Classical Mechanics, 'simultaneous' is the commonsense
idea - "this event here and that event there occur at the same instant in
time both here and there."  Positivists and operationalists believed that it
was not possible to measure "absolute simultaneity", so they argued that the
concept should not be used in scientific theories.  Such preferences for
"words, concepts and definitions" (rather than problems and theories and
evidence) has been effectively criticized by Popper and others.  What we seek
is analogous to the idea of accuracy in engineering: the description "exactly
six centimetres in radius, with a precise mass of ten kilogrammes, moving at
just sixty kilometres per second " is inherently metaphysical, attainable by
actual objects only approximately, albeit now with fantastic precision!

     Helping us to avoid some mathematical by-ways, we now have the advantage
of being able to use very capable electronic computers and software to carry
out complex calculations and modelling for us, at great speed.  The range and
quality of scientific theories, instruments and methodologies available to us
is vast, and growing.  The resources of information technology are increasing
exponentially.  Thus we should be better able to achieve the creation of
objective theories which are accurate, understandable, explanatory,
predictive and more capable of solving scientific problems.

     While our first concern should always be with the content and accuracy
of the theories themselves, the reasons given for their acceptance may often
help us to find contextual sources of error.  As Leibniz made clear, the same
facts can be described by an indefinitely large number of different
explanations. Neither can theories be proved by confirming instances: for any
theory describes indefinitely many possible test situations.  To understand
why theories have been advanced and accepted requires some historical
reconstruction of the scientific problem-situations of the time; this should
include an understanding of the problems which scientists were trying to
solve, which in turn requires some knowledge of the language usage as well as
the theoretical background, experimental, testing and measuring equipment,
procedural methodologies and philosophical ideas and priorities and resources
in use at the time.

     This leads on quite naturally to Imre Lakatos' Methodology of Scientific
Research Programmes (Lakatos, [1978]); a 'basic programme' of physics and
metaphysics, with a 'protective belt' of secondary, auxiliary or ad hoc
theories; and an acceptance of the idea of (as-yet) unsolved or open
problems. The programme is selected for its positive heuristic of
descriptive, explanatory and predictive capabilities.  A "balance-sheet"
approach to the comparison of research programmes is recommended.  Assets and
liabilities correspond with corroborations and anomalies; profit and loss is
the gain or loss to be had in using the research programme, when compared to
the costs of other programmes.  When evaluating corroboration and anomalies,
there is a falsificationist weighting, giving emphasis to any refuting,
negative instances and results.

     To say it again; units of measurement are metaphysical; the description
"six centimetres in length" is attainable physically only by approximation.
It is also impossible to over-emphasize the constant necessity of dimensional
analysis (in terms of mass [M], length [L] and time [T]) of experimental
problem-situations and their data.  Further and unnecessary difficulties are
created when attempts are made to define standard units of length only in
terms of the frequencies or wavelengths of light, or mass in terms of
electronvolts, or time by "the observed position of hands on clocks", rather
than comparing a variety of cross-referring and interlocked measures of
length, time and mass standards using different physical principles.

    For example: a measuring-rod which is one metre long when horizontal can
be expected to shorten slightly when positioned vertically (due to
gravitational compression).  We can say either (a) the rod is shorter; or (b)
vertical metres are different from horizontal metres.  I propose to follow
course (a).  Likewise, although some positivists said that it was meaningless
to talk of empty space (since it did not have an independent material
existence, so that all objects had to be unseparated or contiguous), I choose
to work with a concept of empty space within which can be described relative
coordinate systems using the metaphysical concept of a perfectly rigid
non-rotating cubic grid.

 {F3} Contemporary problem-situations in physics

     Among the problem-situations which I found interesting were:- the lack
of a satisfactory integrated unified realist physical theory; the
wave/particle paradoxes in diffraction and interference; the apparent
conflict between the two postulates of Einstein's [1905] SR theory (an
attempt to place a constant velocity of light in a theoretical system which
apparently denied such a possibility); the compounded absurdities of
"Big-Bang" cosmology and much of the pretentious subjectivist "Quantum
Mechanics" liturgy; the inconsistencies between SR, the [1916] GR theory and
quantum mechanics; the differing and contradictory statements and
interpretations of these theories in scientific textbooks and discussions,
which made more difficult the discovery of a rational cosmology; the - to me,
logically unacceptable - determinist implications of SR and GR (which
represented the universe as an unchanging four-dimensional Parmenidean
block); and (as a spacefaring enthusiast) the possible obstacle a supposed
"light-speed" limitation would constitute to the prospects for space travel,
even if only because it was erroneously thought to be an obstacle.

     There are also marvellous opportunities for further discoveries, to find
out more about what is really causing some of the natural phenomena presently
attributed to "relativistic effects." The emerging science and technology of
microelectronics, nanotechnology and photonic devices can use better
theories.  Energy generation technologies will also benefit from the revision
of atomic and nuclear structural theory, as well as electrodynamics.

 {F4} The "Great Divide"

     The problems which required a new theory toward the turn of the 20th
Century did NOT originate with Classical Mechanics, which at that time did
not include a fully satisfactory ballistic theory of electromagnetic
radiation or light. In the Continental electromagnetics research programme
there were Weber's, Riemann's, Neumann's and Helmholtz's brilliant unified
electrodynamics theories, based on the principles of Classical Mechanics and
charged particles with forces acting at a distance:-

    Stationary particles interact by electrostatic and magnetostatic forces;

    Steadily moving charges create currents;
    Accelerating charges emit radiation.

    The problems arose in the wave/particle paradoxes, and in the foundations
of James Clerk Maxwell's beautiful electrodynamics theory, which posited an
aether for the complex mechanical propagation of electromagnetic forces and
waves of radiation at a finite velocity (the 'c' of Weber's theory,
incidentally).  When Hughes' and Hertz's discovery of "electromagnetic waves"
shifted scientific attention to Maxwell's theory, positivist philosophers and
scientific researchers demanded evidence for the aether intrinsically
necessary to Maxwell's theory, and experiments were devised so as to try to
provide it.

     In a little-remarked paper, Schwarzschild [1903] had shown that
Maxwell's equations can also be expressed in the form of a set of equations
of motion of a system of particles, thus anticipating the 'wave-mechanics' of
de Broglie and Schrodinger by several decades.  All that is needed, in
addition to this, for the development of modern 'wave mechanics', is a form
of the statistically-based Heisenberg 'indeterminacy relation.'
Schwartzchild showed that the equations of a beam of electromagnetic waves,
as deduced from Maxwell's theory, can be recast in the form of the Lagrangian
equations for a stream of particles.  A moment's thought should show that all
wave theories in fact derive from the study of particles of various kinds -
elementary particles, atoms, molecules - interacting either by means of
forces acting over a distance, or by direct contact.

    Most importantly: in [1912], Leigh Page, professor of mathematical
physics at Yale, proved that the complete set of Maxwell's equations can be
derived without any further assumptions by applying Voight's [1887] Doppler
equations for converging or diverging propagated spherical forces - acting
over a distance with a delay proportional to the velocity 'c' - to Coulomb's
Law.  Voight's equations (removed by Lorentz from their physical context and
only tardily acknowledged) later became known as the 'Lorentz

 {F5} Classical Mechanics

     In the 19th Century, the basic scientific system of theoretical
kinematics and dynamics (Classical Mechanics) was widely-known to be
descriptive, explanatory and predictive.  It provided a readily
understandable and immensely powerful system of discovery and cosmology,
which encouraged exploration, discovery and _the investigation of anomalies_,
as well as confidence in a rationally consistent universe - a cosmos rather
than a chaos.

    Most scientists using Classical Mechanics had as the purpose of their
activity the description, explanation and further exploration of the real
universe, rather than the elaboration of abstract mathematical equations, or
instrumental theories which were not intended to be accurate descriptions or
explanatory accounts of reality.

     Newton's system of mechanics is described by Popper as consisting of
Euclid's geometry, with the addition of time, mass-points and directed
forces.  The axiomatized deductive nature of Euclidean geometry is quite
readily understandable.  The basic dimensions of length, mass and time
correspond with everyone's experience of the everyday world.  The sensory
order of human consciousness incorporates this model of reality.  This may be
why Newton believed space itself to be "the sensorium of God" (the sensorium
is the space of consciousness within which the mind and brain synthesise the
pictures of imagination and experience, richly impregnated with the mind's
inherent and chosen theories).

     For as long as Euclid's was thought to be the only possible
self-consistent and true geometry, physical reality was necessarily presumed
to conform to it.  It was only with the development of the non-Euclidean
geometries of Riemann and others that the question arose as to which geometry
might most nearly or exactly ("truthfully") correspond with physical reality.
This issue -- whether geometries are decideable is still controversial.

     While it had been - albeit mistakenly - believed that Classical
Mechanics gave a closed or determinist "mechanistic" description of the
universe (which of itself motivated some to question it), Popper and others
have argued convincingly that Newtonian physics is itself NOT determinist
("The Open Universe", Volume 2 of "The Postscript to the Logic of Scientific
Discovery" publ.  Hutchinson [1982]).

 {F6} The best possible scientific tool-kits.

     We should always continue to evaluate, test and re-test existing
theories in our efforts to discover better ones.  The great stores of
experimental results which corroborate Classical Mechanics are reliable and
have stood up to extensive tests.  Classical Mechanics rests upon
fantastically strong and deep foundations.  These foundations are
incorporated into Relational Dynamics.  Since our research programme
predicts that discrepancies and unexpected results will be explained upon
further research, by the discovery of previously undiscovered properties and
quantities, it actually encourages the investigation of discrepancies,
anomalies, unsolved problems.

     Such a procedure is quite different from attempts to escape theoretical
refutation by "shelving" problems while asserting that "advances in
understanding will in time resolve problems anyway", which seems to be what
has happened to the problem of electron orbits and definite states in quantum

     There is plenty of work in this programme to engage eager physicists!

  {F7} Recommended Reading.

    I could not have developed Relational Dynamics without these books
having been written (although I have to point out that the authors are
frequently at variance with my viewpoints).

     R.A. Waldron's "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light: A Critical
Review" (Frederick Muller, 1977) is brilliant - required reading!

     Alfred O'Rahilly's "Electromagnetics: A Fundamental Approach" (Longmans,
1938 and Dover Press, 1965), a basic text for Galileian Relativity, is also
excellent for its exposition of the work of Ritz and Weber, and its emphasis
on dimensional analysis, as well as being top-flight philosophy of science.

     Petr Beckmann's "Einstein plus 2" (Golem Press, 1987) is a very
interesting - competing - theory to mine, but also working in a Galileian

     Eric J. Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened" (Simon & Schuster, 1991)
is an extraordinarily rich and interesting work of physics, cosmology and

     T.W.B. Kibble's excellent "Classical Mechanics"  Third Edition, Longman
Scientific and Technical, [1985] is strongly recommended as a basic text.

     William K. Berkson's superlative "Fields of Force" (Routledge, Kegan
Paul, 1974) is most illuminating on the physical and philosophical issues and
problem-situations of different research programmes and cosmologies,
especially Faraday's, Maxwell's and Einstein's.

     Abraham Pais' "Subtle is the Lord...  : the Science and the Life of
Albert Einstein" (Oxford University Press, 1982) is definitive biography.

     A.P. French's "Special Relativity" is a fine explication of his subject
albeit by a 'believer', which (exceptionally) takes the trouble to discuss
some of its problems. He has also written a text on Classical Mechanics.

     All of Karl Popper's marvellous works: and

     All of Imre Lakatos' scintillating works.

{E0} Electromagnetic theory: "Waves in an Aether"; or Particles and Forces?

     In the scientific study of electromagnetics and optics there has been a
long-standing debate between "particle" and "wave" theorists.  Pythagoras
seems to have introduced the idea of light as consisting of a stream of
particles emanating from seen objects and entering the eye.  A landmark was
the publication by Abu Ali Mohamed Ibn Al Hasan Ign al Haytham of Baghdad
(343-417 AH), of seven books on optics [Alhazen, @ 378 AH].  He reintroduced
the idea of light as a stream of particles, and greatly developed scientific
methodology, and his ideas have been influential for hundreds of years.  The
"particle" tradition was furthered by Descartes, Fermat and Newton.  The
entirety of geometric optics can be correctly derived - without recourse to
wave theories - by starting with Fermat's principle.

     By the second quarter of the 19th century, however, "particle" theories
of light were losing favour, due to the ideas of Thomas Young, Augustin
Fresnel and others; a particle theory was thought to be unable to account for
effects such as interference, diffraction and polarization.  The experimental
results of Lebedev and others for light pressure were exactly half those
required to corroborate an unsophisticated material particle theory where all
the particle energy is linear momentum, and should perhaps have suggested a
spin component for angular momentum.  Still, by 1825, Fresnel's work
especially had resulted in "wave" theories becoming widely accepted.

     "Particle" theories lost yet more support as a result of Foucault,
Fizeau and Breguet's [1850] experiment (suggested by Arago) which confirmed a
lower velocity of light in water, the opposite result from that expected by
some "particle" theorists, who were explaining refraction in terms of the
attraction of "light-particles" at the boundary towards the optically denser
medium.  Fizeau, in [1859], measured by indirect means the increased velocity
of light in moving media, raising some most interesting questions, to which
Einstein attributed the inspiration for his SR.  These physicists all seem to
have assumed that light in transparent media moved at a constant speed,
rather than intermittently, from electron to electron or atom to atom with
consequent time delays of deceleration (capture) and acceleration
(re-emission).  It was not then understood that all matter consists of tiny
particles amid comparatively vast volumes of empty space.

     The scientific study of electromagnetic radiation (light, radio etc.) in
the 19th century had led to the work of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Heinrich
Hertz and James Clerk Maxwell, which represented electromagnetic radiation as
"waves in an aether." According to Oliver Lodge, such an aether would have to
fill all of space completely; be absolutely cold; be absolutely transparent
and undispersive; be devoid of viscosity; and be the sole vehicle of
electromagnetic radiation.  It would seem that many scientists came to think
of the "Absolute Reference Frame" of some interpretations of Classical
Mechanics as identical to or coextensive with the "aether at rest" of
Maxwell's and Fresnel's theory.

 {E1} Problems in measuring the velocity of light experimentally

     Measuring the velocity of light is in practice much more difficult than
most physics textbooks acknowledge.  (I do not mean by this the alleged
obstacle to accurate measurement mistakenly suggested by some subjectivist or
operationalist "uncertainty" interpretations of quantum physics).  Theories
of light are a vast subject area, interlinked to almost every area of
science, and there are many unsolved problems and uncertainties.  (David Park
writes in Collier's Encyclopaedia, Vol. 14, p. 626, that to do justice to
theories of light would almost be to write a history of physics: certainly, a
particle theory of light and Galilean Relativity necessitates a profound
rethinking and revision of much of contemporary physics).  Students of
electromagnetic science will find it most interesting to discover the
scarcity of experimental studies of the radial velocity of propagation and
cessation of gravitational, electrostatic and magnetostatic forces.  As the
combat pilot's cockpit maxim has it: 'Never assume: *CHECK*!!!'

     Consider the extinction theorem of Ewald and Oseen as it relates to the
velocity of light.  On passing through a gas, liquid or transparent solid,
the the theory of absorption and emission (e.g. QED) states that photons are
absorbed by the matching charges, then re-emitted through the empty space
between them at standard in-vacuo lightspeed, 299 792.485 + or - .0012
km/second (although there may be effects from the propagated electrostatic
actions and interference from secondary sources).  The reduced mean velocity
is due to time taken to absorb and re-emit the photons.

    The velocity of a photon from a star when measured after reradiation from
our atmosphere is necessarily the velocity of re-emittance relative to the
atmosphere.  According to Relational Dynamics, any velocity in excess of c
relative to the absorbing medium WILL NOT be re-transmitted, although the
velocity of re-emittance relative to the re-emitting or re-radiating source
(taking note of any source recoil) can be constant at c, 299 792.485 + or -
.0012 km/second.  Likewise, the journey time and frequency on arrival here of
starlight will depend on the interactions undergone on the way here.

    The nature of absorption and reemission raises further and interesting
issues.  I remember seeing an amusing Open University broadcast on Special
Relativity which purported to show that light from fast electrons showed no
velocity addition when measured over a fixed distance with an oscilloscope
outside the electron chamber: the light was actually shown to have had to
pass through a transparent window in the electron chamber, air, the first
measuring point (a Kerr shutter, I recall), and another metre of air before
reaching the second measuring point!  Unsurprisingly, the velocity measured
was the velocity of light emitted from the first shutter, through air, to the
second shutter...

     Any measurement of the velocity of light which includes optical
interaction (absorption and re-emission or force interaction) with the
measuring apparatus or intervening dispersants is most problematical.

     The propagation of light through a medium (even a fully transparent one)
is a continuous process of interaction (absorption of the incident light and
its reemission as secondary radiation by the medium).  As Ewald and Oseen
point out, only a very small thickness of matter brings about such a
replacement; for visible light, less than 10^-5 cm.  of glass - or less than
0.1 mm. of air at atmospheric pressure - is enough to remove any trace of the
original source.  It is as well to consider this issue carefully when
evaluating experiments which use transparent glass mirrors or reflective
polished surfaces.  This relates to the evaluation of photon interactions as
either absorption and re-emission, elastic collisions or inelastic

  {E2} The search for the "Luminiferous Aether"

     Since the Earth was considered to be in motion around the Sun, if there
was an aether it was thought that there could, perhaps should be a detectable
"aether wind." Fresnel had suggested a partial "aether wind" in [1818], while
Stokes had suggested in [1845] and [1846] that an aether would be motionless
at the Earth's surface.  Measuring the speed of light for aether effects was
therefore considered to be a test between the various theories.

     (It is - unavoidably - part of the background situation that the context
of the disputes between science and religion had also entered many peoples'
thinking: for had it not been argued that the absence of current physical
evidence for the existence of God had undercut religious belief?)

     In his [1905] Relativity paper, Einstein referred to 'unsuccessful
attempts to discover any motion of the Earth relatively to the "light medium"
(aether)'.  From 1850 to 1872, Fizeau, Respighi, Hoek, Airy and Mascart had
all sought for evidence of the effects of the Earth's orbital velocity on
terrestrial optical phenomena, as had Albert A. Michelson in his experiments.
In 1931, Einstein gave a banquet speech in Pasadena, in which he addressed
Michelson - the 'Master of Light' who was then 80 years old - with these

     "It was you who led the physicists into new paths, and through your
marvellous experimental work paved the way for the development of the Theory
of Relativity.  You discovered an insidious defect in the ether theory of
light, as it then existed, and stimulated the ideas of H.A. Lorentz and
FitzGerald, out of which the Special theory of Relativity developed.  Without
your work this theory would today be scarcely more than an interesting
speculation; it was your verifications which first set the theory on a real
basis." (Jaffe, [1960]).

     (Einstein was usually most reluctant to acknowledge the key role played
by the Michelson-Morley experiment - perhaps because it could be equally well
predicted, described and explained by Walter Ritz's ballistic theory.  Just
before Ritz died, he and Einstein co-wrote and published an account of their
agreements and disagreements concerning their rival relativity theories (W.
Ritz and A. Einstein, Phys.  Zeitschrift 10, 323, [1909])).

     Einstein's generous compliment to Michelson may be contrasted with the
view of Weyl and others, that in their opinion, the problem was to do with
Classical Mechanics, not with electrodynamics.  Minkowski in his [1908]
lecture described an "electromagnetic image of the world ...  discovered by
Lorentz and further revealed by Einstein, which now lies open in the full
light of day." (This was the influential reductionist idea that all matter
consisted of positive protons and negative electrons, which was only
falsified by the discovery of the positron and the mass-content of the

     Michelson himself resolutely continued to believe that he had proven
Stokes' theory, and in an "Absolute Reference Frame" as well.  Although he
eventually conceded that it seemed that Einstein could be right, he continued
with experiments to show an aether right through until 1931, in part because
"he found it fun", which seems a good enough reason.  More recently, Paul
Dirac [1951] has argued the possibility of a revised aether theory, as have
Imre Lakatos and others.  The most useful aether theory would seem to be
Larmor's, which asserts that only consequential properties of an aether can
be ascertained.

 {E3} Some different methods for measuring the velocity of light

     Measurements of light velocity can be classified into several methods:

     Direct method: along a measured distance, in vacuo, without any
interposed absorption and re-emittance from any medium or part of the
measuring equipment.  This might be done using two parallel synchronized
coherent beams (S & S') split from one variable light source in free space;
and two or more photoelectric receptors a known distance apart, each of which
intersects one beam.  It is possible that the first photoreceptor may have to
be some distance from the second beam to be sure that it does not affect it
in any way.


       V A C U U M

 S- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
 S' - - -|                           |
         |<----------- L ----------->|

        Photoreceptors connected to an
         interval-timing oscilloscope


     There are problematical semi-direct methods (with some interposed
absorption and re-emittance), such as systems using rotating mirrors or
Kerr-effect photocells.

     There are problematical fully indirect methods such as Michelson's,
Lloyd's etc., (measuring comparative frequency and wavelength changes,
interference fringe shifts, phase shifts and other effects).

 {A0} The idea of an "Absolute Reference Frame"

     Most scientists in the late 19th Century had accepted a version of
Classical Mechanics which included the concept of an "Absolute Reference
Frame" co-extensive with the "aether at rest" of Maxwell's theory, as a
privileged coordinate system; an infinite unmoving three-dimensional
Cartesian space with unique qualities, within which all the movements of
matter occurred in a single dimension of time with a universal instantaneous

     When attempts by Albert A. Michelson and others to find evidence for an
aether were held to be unsuccessful, it was widely (if mistakenly) believed
that this was also a failure to find evidence for an "Absolute Reference
Frame" (also mistakenly believed by some to be essential to Classical
Mechanics), and that the reliability of both classical electromagnetics and
Classical Mechanics were therefore in doubt, requiring new theories to
replace them.

     A number of difficult alternative possibilities were canvassed:

 [1] Creation of a fully Galileian electrodynamics and optics, with light as
particles (Ritz);

 [2] Modification of the fixed standards of measurement due to aether flow
compressing the electron fields of their constituent matter in the line of
motion, and abandoning Newtonian mechanics (Lorentz); or:-

 [3] Retention of Lorentz's equations, but without the aether, therefore
treating light as particles but with a modified relativistic mechanics
incorporating the Lorentz transformations by reason of the supposedly
constant velocity of light in all frames (Einstein).

      The failure to detect the Earth's movement through an aether, or any
change in the velocity of light within an coordinate system which remains
stationary relative to the light source, was and is in fact _a striking
success_ for a comprehensive theory of relational mechanics, and a ballistic
theory of light as particles emitted at a velocity (excluding any effects of
external forces) which is constant relative to its most recent source.  It is
remarkable that this was not more obvious.  As the saying goes, there is
sometimes more to the obvious than is obvious...

 {A1} Michelson's [1881] and (with Morley) [1887] tests of Aether theories

       - A
  S    |    B
  * ===/==/=|     >->
       -- O

     A coherent light ray from a source S within the experimental apparatus
was divided by a half-silvered mirror G at 45 degrees to the ray, so that two
equal length light paths were created.  The apparatus was located in a
horizontal plane, with the arm B in line with the earth's motion.  The mirror
at A was set to show no interference fringes at O.  The entire apparatus was
then rotated on a vertical axis through ninety degrees until the arm A was in
line with the earth's motion.

     No significant shifts of interference fringes were observed: light on a
path moving in the line of the Earth's motion round the Sun was found to
retain approximately the same frequency as light from the same source but
moving on the path at a right angle to the line of motion, indicating that
the path lengths and velocity were unchanged.  The results were the same as
would have been expected if the experimental apparatus had been stationary.

     (It is interesting that in this experiment, any frequency shift would
have been interpreted as a difference in the velocity of light, whereas when
red-shifts and blue-shifts are observed from eclipsing binary star systems,
that is not usually interpreted as evidence for varying velocities of

     After these experiments, some erroneously believed that Michelson had
disproved the velocity addition theorem, as well as having failed to detect
an "aether wind".  Michelson, a lifelong aether theorist, in fact believed
that his experiments had verified Stokes's theory that there was no "aether
wind" at the Earth's surface, and that he had therefore falsified Fresnel's

 {G0} Coordinate systems: Newton's Laws and Galileian Invariance

     However, it is not necessary to accept SR or GR because of the failure
to find a privileged or "Absolute Reference Frame"; SR and GR are far from
being the only relativity theories, as William Berkson explains in his
marvellously insightful work, "Fields of Force" (RKP, [1974]).  The existence
of an "Absolute Reference Frame" is not essential to Newton's mechanics
either. And there is a complete and fully self-consistent classical
relativity theory - Galileian relativity.  A coordinate system or frame of
reference in which Newton's laws hold is an inertial frame; there is an
infinity of inertial frames, none of which are privileged, which can all be
connected by Galileian transformations, so named after Galileo Galilei, and
first described by Huygens.

     The invariance of Newton's laws under translations (shifting the origin
of the measurement system) and boosts (when the new frame of reference moves
with a constant velocity) is called Galileian invariance.  Classical
mechanics asserts the composition of velocities, according to which, for
example, an object (o) moving at a constant speed (s1) within a coordinate
system (f1) which is itself moving in the same direction at speed (s2)
relative to another coordinate system (f2) which is stationary appears within
(f2) as an object (o) moving at a compound velocity of (s1+s2).  Only
Galileian transformations are fully self-consistent, without paradoxical or
self-contradictory consequences.  O'Rahilly's book is especially good on

     There may well be a coordinate system within which the infinite contents
of the Universe move in uniform translation less than within any other;
however, since we are not able to explore the entire Universe, identifying
such a coordinate system or reference frame would seem to present
insurmountable difficulties, for the case of uniform translation.  Of course,
absolute rotation is easily demonstrable by way of symmetrical forces either
side of a unique rest position.

  {R0} Walter Ritz and Light without an "Aether"

     As the 20th century opened, it would have been most useful to evolve a
full re-radiating ballistic theory of the motion of light as material light
rays or particle-beams within Galileian systems, to account for Michelson's
result, as well as for gravitational deflection and retardation of starlight.
It can hardly be over-emphasisized that this was ruled out *at that time* as
having been settled as an issue, in favour of "Waves in the Aether."  Pais
[1982] and [1985] explains the immense difficulty Einstein had in getting the
idea of photons accepted, first as an "energy quantum" and later as "momentum
quanta."  Theories are human inventions, and innovations and their acceptance
are not predictable.  Walter Ritz (a student, with Einstein, of Minkowski's
in Abteilung VI of the Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule in Zurich until
1901, as well as studying with Voight and Lorentz) proposed a ballistic
theory of light in a Galileian framework in his paper of [1908].

     As Poincare emphasized, systems of mechanics are to a great extent
matters of convention and convenience.  Ritz decided to retain the classical
Galileian principle of relativity of motion, and create appropriately
modified theories of optics and electrodynamics instead.  His research
programme proposed that 'particles fictive' of luminous energy (very like the
"virtual photons" of quantum electrodynamics) are projected (rather than
propagated) with velocity c from emitting charges (Annales de Chimie et de
Physique, 8, [1908]).

     Alfred O'Rahilly's textbook 'Electromagnetics: a discussion of
fundamentals'  Longman, Green and University of Cork, Cork, [1938] and Dover
Press [1965]) which - as Popper has pointed out - excels in the literature
criticizing non-Euclidean and incomplete relativity, discusses Weber's and
Ritz's theories and compares them favourably to the various alternatives.  I
rather doubt that anyone reading O'Rahilly's lucid and brilliant work fairly
will continue to accept credulously the arguments for non-Euclidean,
incompletely relative, self-contradicting theories.

     It must be remembered that experimental results had not as of 1908 shown
that particle beams could exhibit all known "wave effects", including
reflection, refraction, interference, diffraction, frequency, transverse
vibration, dispersion, polarization, pressure and Doppler effects.  Ritz's
theory may have been doubted for this reason; his contemporaries commonly
demanded conformity with a "waves in the aether" model.

     Walter Ritz was one of the most original and brilliant scientific
thinkers of this or any century, and his contributions to scientific progress
are neglected to the considerable detriment of academic scholarship and
contemporary scientific activity.  Despite mortal illness and adversity, in
his ten or so years of active scientific work he contributed much to
mathematics and physics.  Using Rydberg's constant, Ritz's combination
principle [1908] was used five years afterwards by Niels Bohr in his
trailblazing [1913] quantum theory of atomic structure.  Ritz also devised
the Ritz method for approximate mathematical solutions of variable problems.

     As Paul Forman writes in the American Council of Learned Societies'
Dictionary of Scientific Biography (Publ. Scribner's), Ritz's work has yet to
receive the critical attention and sympathetic extension it merits.
O'Rahilly, Waldron and I have sought to remedy this.  Richard Feynman's
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) draws extensively on Ritz's work.

    The usual references to alternatives to non-Galileian relativity (where
they occur at all) omit mention of Ritz's work, or assert (without even
troubling to describe Ritz's theory) that some experiment or other 'refuted'
it.  Upon closer examination, *none* of the alleged 'refutations' are
anything of the sort, although a curious shifting of goalposts usually
results in their hasty replacement by a newly devised "refutation" -
altogether an astonishingly unscientific business...

     In 1908, nearly "everyone knew" that light was "waves in the aether",
just as, a few decades later, nearly "everyone knew" that light consisted of
quanta, upgraded to "photons" (the title appropriated from Gilbert Lewis, who
intended it for something else!); and almost no-one wanted to "bring back the
aether" as of only a few years later.

 {L0} The "FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction": W. Voight's Equation

     H.A. Lorentz was outstandingly capable as a theoretical and experimental
physicist, and was by many accounts a likeable and very influential man.  He
thought that Michelson's experiment did not disprove Fresnel's theory, nor
did he think it proved Stokes's theory either.  In [1886] he devised an
"aether wind" experiment predicting very small effects.  In [1887] Michelson
and Morley tested it and again found no "aether wind".  However, the test was
not carried out at high altitudes until [1897], when there was again a null

     Lorentz, in an ingenious (Minkowski said "extremely fantastical") effort
to retain aether theory, accounted for Michelson's null results by theorizing
that the aether, by electrostatic action on the electrons of the material
structure within the apparatus, caused a physical compression of Michelson's
apparatus in the direction of travel through the aether of exactly that
amount which would produce the null result.  Suitable equations he found in a
paper by Woldemar Voight [1887] on the Doppler effect.  Voight analysed the
differential equations for oscillations in an incompressible elastic medium,
and established a set of transformation equations for his theory of
converging or diverging spherical forces - which later became known as the
"Lorentz Transformations." Lorentz only reluctantly later acknowledged
Voight's priority.

     It should be more clearly understood that if the fixed standard units of
scientific measurement are also used as theoretical variables, the
maintenance of scientific standards of rationality, accuracy and integrity
within those theories becomes very difficult, if not impossible.  There could
be little or no testable evidence for Lorentz's contraction hypothesis, which
is not now widely accepted.  However, had the velocity of light been found to
be the same regardless of source velocity, that would be prima facie evidence
for something like an aether, or for a dominant-field theory like

 {L1} Non-Euclidean Relativity: Poincare, Minkowski, Einstein and Weyl

     Michelson had published his first experimental results in the American
Journal of Science, 22, in [1881].  Lorentz published his interpretation of
them in [1887]; and in [1892] published his paper on Maxwell's work.  G.F.
FitzGerald put forward his matter-contraction hypothesis in [1893].  In his
[1895] paper "Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen
Erscheinungen in bewegten Koerpern", Lorentz suggested his aether-controlled
contraction hypothesis, calculated according to Woldemar Voight's
Doppler-effect equations for converging spherical forces, based on division
by the square root of 1-(v/c)^2 where v is the velocity of convergence.

     Lorentz's hypothesis seemed quite successful in explaining most of the
magnetic and optical experimental results of his day.  He sought to combine
mechanics and electromagnetic theory with Maxwell's theory of the propagation
of light at a constant velocity within an aether.  In Lorentz's theory,
moving objects change their dimensions.  Classical mechanics was discarded.
Relativity of simultaneity was proposed.

     Lorentz was convinced (as were many people) that the aether and
"absolute space" were coextensive, so that if the aether could not be
detected, "the motion of a system could not be detected from within that
system." His theory was intended to explain how light of a constant velocity
of propagation in a stationary aether (Fresnel's and Maxwell's theory) could
appear as constant in distinct coordinate systems travelling at different
velocities (which was how he erroneously interpreted Michelson's result).
Minkowski went on to use Lorentz's ideas in his own field-theoretical work.

     In [1896], in Zurich, Poincare gave a lecture to the International
Congress of Mathematicians setting out his own non-Euclidean relativity
theory (when Einstein was a student there).  In [1897], J.J. Thomson was
credited with the experimental discovery of the electron which Stoney - and
then Lorentz - had predicted.  In [1898] Paul Gerber had explained the
Mercury precession advance by the principle of gravity as a propagated
action-at-a-distance (far-action).  In fact, Gerber used the observational
data to calculate a velocity for gravitational propagation!  Weber's
followers had already explained three-quarters of the precession advance by
using the gravitational form of Riemann's electrodynamic equations - all this
in the middle of the 19th century!

     In [1901] Max Planck's epoch-making quantum theory of electromagnetic
radiation as discrete quanta with symmetrical emission and absorption by
accelerated electrons within the atom was published.  Until then, there was
perhaps some reason for thinking that discrete stepwise or discontinuous
matter-energy effects were inconsistent with Classical Mechanics, although
such effects were not explained by Maxwell's electromagnetic theory.

     When Einstein suggested in his inductivist [1905] SR that there was no
aether, but that - for the velocity of light to be constant in all frames -
space itself had to vary in measurement along with the objects therein on a
velocity-dependent basis in accordance with Lorentz's equations and
Minkowski's non-Euclidean geometry, it was in that context.  In [1916], the
extension to include accelerated reference frames (GR) necessitated a shift
to Riemannian non-Euclidean geometry, if Einstein's postulates were to be

     It is best to understand the contemporaneous logical sequence this way:

[1] Light consists of particles in space (Pythagoras, Alhazen, Newton, Ritz);

[2] No, light is "waves in an aether" (Fresnel, Maxwell, Hertz, Lorentz etc.).

[3] But, is this aether stationary? (Fresnel) Or convected? (Stokes)

[4] Tests show the aether cannot be detected dynamically (Michelson-Morley)

[5] errm..  because of physical dimensional contraction (FitzGerald, Lorentz)

[6] The velocity of light is constant at c relative to the aether (Lorentz)

[7] But (!) an undetectable aether cannot be said to exist or wave!(Einstein)

[8] Thus, light has to consist of separate quanta or particles (Einstein)

[9] But still with a velocity of c irrespective of source velocity (Einstein)

[10] so that my dynamical equations stay the same as Lorentz's! (Einstein).

     Thus, a choice was offered between aether or "no-aether" theories, as
well as wave or particle world-views, both non-Newtonian, but always with
identical operational equations.

 {SG} Einstein's Special and General Theories reconsidered

     One can only marvel at the now-vast numbers of differing interpretations
of Einstein's theories - surely a mark of inconsistency and incomprehension.
The best single source is Einstein's own little book on SR and GR, first
published in [1920].

     While corroborating evidence cannot finally prove a theory true,
sufficient valid counter-evidence or logical inconsistencies can prove a
theory false.  The best method to use in evaluating such theories is a
"balance-sheet" comparative approach.  Popper gives as his reason for
preferring Einstein's theory as potentially or virtually better than
Newton's, that it has greater content and explanatory capability, and he
gives as instances the gravitational deflection and redshift of starlight.
However, as Popper has himself said elsewhere, a ballistic theory of light
does in fact include, explain and predict the effects of gravity on starlight
(deflection and retardation); and gravity is not the only force which is able
to act on photons.

     Popper writes in "Unended Quest" that Einstein's idea of the universe as
a closed Riemannian space of finite radius has now been more or less
abandoned, as has been philosophical positivism, determinism, and theoretical
operationalist methodology.  It is interesting that many of Einstein's
"predictions" have been found to be the prior discoveries of others,
attributable to other causes.  His and Phillip Lenard's photo-electric theory
(incorporating Planck's quantum theory) has been most valuable (it was for
this specific work that Einstein's Nobel Prize was awarded).  It may well be
that his partial retention of Newtonian insights as to the corpuscular nature
of light accounts for many of the predictions his theories  make (albeit by
other, rather different, theoretical means).

     Still, as Popper says, we should be grateful to Einstein, Lorentz etc.,
for providing yet another possible theoretical alternative, enabling us
freely to choose and use our preferred theoretical systems creatively, as
(always fallible) hypothetico-deductive systems.

     Why were these ideas accepted? In 1905, Einstein published three sets of
papers, all concerning fundamental constants - Planck's, Boltzmann's, and the
velocity of light - c; one on the photo-electric effect (the light-stimulated
emission of electrons); one on Brownian movement; and on Special Relativity.
It may be that the success of his explanation of Brownian motion, and his and
Lenard's photo-electric theory, disposed many people favourably towards his
other theoretical work.

     Although the validity of Einstein's ideas is not dependent on their
historical origins, or their psychological appeal, but, rather, on their
correspondence to the facts, an understanding of the background to his
theories is useful.  The theories seem to have been reworded from time to
time to escape refutation by experimental evidence.  It has even been said
that the Special theory is not a scientific theory at all, but rather, a
philosophical theory.  Here are Einstein's own words:

      "The Principle of Relativity in its widest sense is contained in the
statement: 'The totality of physical phenomena is of such a character that it
gives no basis for the introduction of the concept of Absolute Motion'; or,
shorter but less precise: 'There is no Absolute Motion.'"

      This statement is fully consistent with Classical Mechanics under
conditions of Galileian invariance.  It can be compared to Newton's statement
that there exists a space at rest but that, apart from rotation, its position
cannot be found by observation of the stars or of mechanical effects. (Newton
could not know of the isotropic microwave background).  The problem is that
Einstein's theory is incompletely relative, with its postulate of a constant
velocity of light requiring a different kinematics, and consequent suggested
"relativistic" velocity-dependent effects.  No paradox-free interpretation of
SR is possible, so that it must be excluded on logical as well as physical

     Einstein included some metaphysical errors from quite different
contemporary contexts: the then-fashionable positivist subjectivist
philosophy of Ernst Mach; operationalism (an overly-literal
"observationalist" idea whereby no term could be used without specifying the
operations necessary to observing it); instrumentalism (the idea that a
theory need not be true, but only useful); Minkowski's field-theoretic work;
and Lorentz's transformation hypothesis (removed from its context of
Lorentz's idea of "aether flow" acting on matter so as to compress it in the
line of motion).  Popper describes SR as a relativistic reworking of
Lorentz's [1895] formalism; that SR is inductivist in character; and says
that there has thus far been no crucial test between them.

     A constant velocity of light in all systems is not a logical consequence
required by the Special theory, but an a priori postulate.  Where a constant
velocity - relative to the aether - is found (in the wave theories of
Fresnel, Stokes, Maxwell and Lorentz), the cause is the velocity of
propagation within the aether.  In Weber's theory, c is the derived rate of
force propagation, used by Maxwell to cross-check his own theory.  Einstein
believed that the constant velocity of light in different systems was simply
"in agreement with experience", that is to say, with experimental evidence.
The constant velocity of propagation of light relative to its source was
certainly in agreement with experimental evidence, but no experiments up to
that time had refuted velocity addition.  Nor have they since then.  Indeed,
Michelson's experiments had actually shown velocity addition, on a ballistic
hypothesis. However, as W.G.V. Rosser amusingly points out, "it has often
been suggested that a direct experimental check of the principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light is impossible, since one would have to
assume it to true to synchronize the spatially separated clocks."
("Introduction to the Theory of Relativity.", p. 133 [1964])

     Statements like "Special Relativity does not apply to rotation or to
accelerated frames of reference" make clear that SR is meant as instrumental.
It cannot be intended to be a complete physical descriptive explanation, or
to provide the sort of predictive cosmology which Classical Mechanics
provides.  However, absolute rotation either side of a rotational rest frame
can be ascertained, by measuring the resulting centrifugal force, or by using
Sagnac's experimental arrangement.  This refuted the Special theory, although
Paul Langevin (Comtes Rendus Acad. Sc. [1921], Vol. 173 p. 831) attempted to
argue that the General theory did account for it, in that centrifugal force
would supposedly not exist if all other gravitational field sources were
eliminated from the universe - truly an impossible theory to test! (And is it
really a "relative" question, whether the Earth revolves around the Sun, or
vice-versa? Did Einstein or his expositors seriously seek to reopen the
dispute between Galileo and the Inquisition?)

     In his theory of General Relativity, Einstein attempted to include
accelerated frames of reference and all physical laws, in an effort to
eliminate the concepts of different gravitational and inertial forces in
favour of field theory and Riemannian space-time.  He himself believed both
the Special and General theories to be incorrect, and went on to work
unsuccessfully for many years on a unified field theory.

     If Einstein's theory is reinterpreted as an explanation of how light
signals travelling at finite velocity between coordinate systems moving at
considerable relative velocities may result in changes in how distant events
are subjectively perceived, rather than how distant events really -
objectively - occur, that would be quite useful.  In the same way, a drinking
straw partially immersed in water may appear bent, when it is actually quite

 {Q1} Quantum Errancy: Schrodinger, Heisenberg and the Copenhagen Diversions

     We should also be able to achieve a generalization of Classical
Mechanics to include a quantized atomic mechanics (this was Niels Bohr's
original and stated objective before his going astray in 1925, as well as
being a long-standing stated goal of Einstein's), to allow for the existence
of the quantum of action as originating in the incremental angular and linear
momentum of the material content of photons which consist of particles, while
providing an understandable and invariant realist description of atomic
structure and dynamics.  Beckmann [1987] provides an interesting physical
electrodynamic explanation for the quantization of electronic orbits, in
terms of there being a necessity for integer increments in the orbital
vibration of the electron.

     The fifty-seven-some varieties of quantum theories are often confused
and muddled, shot through with physical, logical and philosophical
inadequacies. While the correspondence principle (whereby any principle of
quantum theory should give results consistent with Classical Mechanics when
applied to macro scale systems) provides some anchorage in Classical
Mechanics, neither Schrodinger's nor Heisenberg's work has consistently
provided such a generalization.

     Relational Dynamics will allow us to ascertain, as precisely as the
techniques and instrumentation of the day permit, the position, velocity,
spin, momentum, charge and mass of particles, as well as their propagated
forces and other properties.  There is no insurmountable theoretical barrier
to an increasing accuracy in doing so; the nature of the task is more nearly
analogous to the improvement of the resolving capabilities of different kinds
of microscopes or telescopes.  We can dispense with the old idea that 'to
observe' means 'to see light bouncing off' (the thematic origin of the
indeterminacy principle - not being able to see anything at diameters
less-than-light-wavelengths, with photons disturbing the positions).  We can,
for example, test the properties of the experimental situation by setting
test parameters such that only specified configurations can pass through
unmodified.  By testing for modification only and excluding those results, we
can ascertain the properties of specified configurations.  We can run precise
computer simulations.

     In his "Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery", Popper argues
that the attainment of a realist quantum theory, which provides for
statements which describe the objective propensities of testable situations,
allows us to continue the work of science without the problematic
subjectivist concepts of "complementarity", "duality", or the now-refuted
"uncertainty" (or - more correctly put - "indeterminacy") principle.

     And we shall proceed further towards these objectives in future papers.

                                 PART II


     Many problem-situations of modern physics and cosmology are illuminated
and resolved by progressing to a revised and augmented hypothetico -
deductive system of invariant relational mechanics.  This can be quantized
wherever appropriate, to take account of any real discontinuous or quantum
effects.  Quantized phenomena where they occur are produced by the
properties, mechanisms and intrinsic variables of physical systems, and so
are not inconsistent with Classical Mechanics.

     This programme will provide a clear, consistent, comprehensive,
intelligible and increasingly accurate scientific cosmology, which is
descriptive, explanatory and predictive.  The description "relational" is
intended to denote a fully relative Galileian mechanics, without "absolute
velocities", so that all velocities are relative, forces are relational
(acting between objects at a distance either instantly or with a delay), and
conservation laws hold for mass, momentum and energy.  Following Poincare, it
should be noted that the selection of systems of mechanics is substantially a
matter of convention.

     Newton's system of Classical Mechanics is described by Karl Popper as
consisting of Euclid's geometry with the addition of time, mass-points and
directed forces.  (The first two Laws were carried forward by Newton from
Descartes).  As a research programme, it encourages the quest for previously
undiscovered forces, events and facts.  It can be further developed to a
system of relational mechanics.  We are greatly indebted to Walter Ritz,
Alfred O'Rahilly and R.A. Waldron for their work in this regard.

     This paper will not of course be "the last word" on this subject; I do
not believe in the idea of "final truth" anyway, and future improvements and
extensions will always be possible.  We advance in science, as in other areas
of knowledge, by means of questions, conjectures, reflections, tests,
discussion, refutations, and new conjectures.

 {A2} William Berkson's Cosmological tables.

     William Berkson, in his excellent work "Fields of Force", has tabulated
these alternative constituents of various possible "world views" or Research
Programmes (p. 254, RKP, 1972); such tabulation is of great assistance in
comparing and evaluating the various Research Programmes.

 (a) There is empty space; or there is full space.
 (b) There is action-at-a-distance; or there is contiguous action only.
 (c) Forces do not exist; or there are forces.
 (d) There is instantaneous force interaction; or finite force propagation.
 (e) Matter (and possibly fields) obey - or do not obey - Newtonian laws.
 (f) Position is dependent on central forces; or on non-conservative forces.
 (g) Matter and field are distinct; or are identified.
 (h) Matter is; or is not extended.
 (i) Space and field are distinct; or are identified.
 (j) There are multiple properties with point of space; or unique properties
 (k) Electrical particles exist; or do not exist.

 (For the original table, and a fascinating discussion of how various
scientific world-views include these constituents, the reader is recommended
to Berkson's splendid book).

     D    N    B    F    K    M    W    H    J    L    E    W    B   |  R  M
     e    e    o    a    e    a    e    e    J    o    i    a    e   |  e  e
     s    w    s    r    l    x    b    l    T    r    n    l    c   |  l  c
     c    t    c    a    v    w    e    m    h    e    s    d    k   |  a  h
     a    o    o    d    i    e    r    h    o    n    t    r    m   |  t  a
     r    n    v    a    n    l    .    o    m    t    e    o    a   |  i  n
     t    .    i    y    .    l    .    l    s    z    i    n    n   |  o  i
     e    .    t    .    .    .    .    t    o    .    n    .    n   |  n  c
     s    .    c    .    .    .    .    z    n    .    .    .    .   |  a  s
     .    .    h    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .   |  l  .
     .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .   |  .  .
  i    |  X |  X |    |    |    |  X |    |    |    |    |  X |  X   |   X
  ii X |    |    |  X |  X |  X |    |  X |  X |  X |  X |    |      |
  i    |  X |  X |    |    |    |  X |  X |    |    |    |  X |  X   |
  ii X |    |    |  X |  X |  X |    |    |  X |  X |  X |    |      |   X
  i  X |    |    |    |  X |    |    |    |    |    |  X |    |      |
  ii   |  X |  X |  X |    |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |    |  X |  X   |   X
  i  X |  X |  X |    |    |    |  X |  X |    |    |    |    |      | ? - G
  ii   |    |    |  X |  X |  X |    |    |  X |  X |  X |  X?|  X   | X E M
  i    |  X |  X |    |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |    |    |  X |  X   |   X
  ii X |    |    |  X?|    |    |    |    |    |  X |  X |    |      |
  i    |  X |  X |    |    |    |    |  X |    |    |    |  X |      |  ?
  ii   |    |    |  X |    |  X |  X |    |  X |  X |    |    |  ?   |
  i    |    |    |    |    |  X |    |  X |  X |  X |    |  X |  X   |   X
  ii X |    |    |  X |  X |    |    |    |    |    |  X |    |      |
  i  X |  X |    |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X   |   X
  ii   |    |  X |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |      |
  i    |    |    |    |  X |  X |    |  X |  X |  X?|    |  X |  X   |   X
  ii X |    |    |  X?|    |    |    |    |    |    |  X |    |      |
  i    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |  X |    |      |
  ii X |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |    |  X |  X   |   X
  i    |    | X  |    |    |    |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X |  X   |   X
  ii   |    |    |  X |  X |  X |    |    |    |    |    |    |      |

  {A3} Waldron's Table of Corroboration of Theories of Light

Experiment    Lorentz/Einstein  |  Ballistic Theory  |  Reradiant Ballistic
Arago              Agrees                   Agrees              Agrees
Hoek               Agrees                   Agrees              Agrees
Fizeau             Agrees                   Agrees              Disagrees
Aberration         Agrees                   Agrees              Disagrees
de Sitter Binaries Agrees                   Agrees              No check
Michelson/Morley   Agrees                   Agrees              Agrees
Majorana 1         Agrees                   Agrees              Disagrees
Majorana 2         Agrees                   Agrees              Disagrees
Sagnac             Agrees                   Agrees              Agrees
Michelson          Agrees                   Agrees              Disagrees
Kantor             Disagrees                Disagrees           Agrees
James/Sternberg  K Agrees                   Agrees              Disagrees
Babcock/Bergman  K Agrees                   Agrees              Disagrees
Beckmann/Mandics K Agrees                   Agrees              Disagrees
Beckmann/Mandics 1 Agrees                   Agrees              Disagrees
Beckmann/Mandics 2 Agrees                   Agrees              Disagrees
Sadeh              Agrees                   Agrees              No check
Alvager (Alvager)  Agrees                   Disagrees           No check
Alvager (Waldron)  Disagrees                Agrees              No check
R.A. Waldron's Table of Speed-of-Light Experiments (p. 122, Waldron [1977])

      In nature, the Cosmos is not compartmentalised into the small, the
everyday and the large; extending Bohr's correspondence principle, whereby
quantum-level events when scaled-up should conform with Classical Mechanics,
an integrated hypothetico-deductive descriptive and explanatory theoretical
sub-atomic, atomic, terrestrial and celestial physics and cosmology should
therefore be possible.

     It is scientifically worthwhile to integrate the following into a
theoretical relational mechanics:- a comprehensive theory of atomic
structure; a theory of electromagnetic radiation as made up of emitted
electromagnetically charged material particles, and with relational
magnetostatic and electrostatic forces acting at a distance; a propensity
theory of particle physics utilizing "hidden variables".  This should achieve
a reliable and accurate integrated (and where appropriate, quantized) atomic,
terrestrial and celestial mechanics, to provide clarity, rationality,
common-sense, and exploratory capability in our scientific activities.

     No doubt we can also work to refine the various present theories, to
provide ourselves with 'triangulated', cross-referencing checks, and to
maintain novelty of explanation.  In the critical rational tradition, honest
and fair criticism and discussion is a part of this procedure.

      Relational mechanics shows that either SR or GR can be replaced by a
more accurate and more reliable relational theory, which contains the real
successes of Newton's and Einstein's theories, while predicting exciting new

      The 2.7 degree Kelvin background radiation tells us much about the
disposition of the universe.  D.W. Sciama writes that this has the (Planck)
spectrum we would expect if it had come into thermal equilibrium with matter
at a definite temperature.  Intensity is the same in all directions to a
precision of better than one part in a thousand: the most accurate
measurement ever made in cosmology.  In some respects, it serves as an
'Absolute Reference Frame.'  For we can measure 'colourshift' for any motion
relative to it.

     In particular, it tells us the Universe is very uniform on a large
scale, since non-uniformities would disturb the evenness of the background.
It has recently been reported that there is an averaged colour-shift of a few
thousandth of a degree, indicating that our galaxy is moving relative to the
background.  Also, the universe may be uniformly patterned on a very large
scale.  The existence and character of this cosmic background does not
however require our acceptance of a singular point-source or "Big-Bang"

     The cosmology proposed by Relational Dynamics describes rather a
physical order where all matter and energy states, forces and events exist
and occur within an evolving infinite and eternal Universe, the contents of
which are locateable by means of Galileian-related infinite Euclidean
three-dimensional reference frames or coordinate systems; a universe of
infinitely extended uniform space, and one uniform dimension of time; with a
past of indeterminate duration; and with a universal instantaneous present
elapsing unidirectionally forward at a constant rate.  The future is
indeterminate, open.

     Within this universe occur conserved causal matter-energy events in
accordance with causality; objective propensities; chance events; and the
purposive volitional acts of living beings, including ourselves. Matter emits
material electromagnetic radiation, which is reconcentrated by gravitational
and electrostatic forces.

      For more than three centuries, the straightforward principles of
Classical Mechanics were used by scientists of all races, creeds and colours
around the world, to predict, discover and explain billions on billions of
events in the universe, with marvellous success.  Problematically, they were
so successful that Classical Mechanics was sometimes regarded as unquestioned
and unquestionable truth, rather than as an extraordinarily accurate and
successful expandable system of hypotheses, a research programme originated
by Newton and others, which can be used deductively to provide wonderfully
accurate descriptions, explanations and predictions of reality.  People
seemed to loose the ability to defend it against rival theories, so that when
unexpected anomalies were encountered, doubts arose as to the entire theory.

     However, when Classical and Relational Dynamics are used in an
appropriate "anomaly-seeking" way, any unpredicted anomaly can be welcomed as
indicating a possible previously undiscovered quantity, force or effect, or a
requirement for an additional auxiliary theory, rather than requiring the
abandonment of the entire theoretical system.  Possible counterinstances are
actively sought out, and are frequently shown to be further corroborating

     As Popper has argued, complete determinism is logically and practically
impossible in an open universe which includes causation, objective
propensities, chance, and purpose, along with incomplete knowledge of initial
conditions.  No system can include a completely accurate representation of
itself.  Neither Classical Mechanics or any other testable scientific theory
can "explain everything." Any finite number of observations can be
accommodated by an indefinitely large number of explanations; and any theory
predicts an indefinitely large number of instances.

{X0} Some Problems for Classical & Relational Dynamics; and some solutions

     "The Principle of Relativity" (publ.  Methuen, [1923]) by Einstein,
Lorentz, Minkowski and Weyl is recommended reading for clear and original
statements of the arguments by some of the leading theoreticians of many of
the ideas.  Einstein's writing style in "Relativity" [1920] is very readable.
"Electromagnetics; a discussion of Fundamentals" by Alfred O'Rahilly (publ.
University of Cork and Longman, Green, [1938-9]) is highly recommended for an
exposition of some of Walter Ritz's work, as well as for devastating and very
readable counter-arguments to erroneous and incompletely "relativistic"
theories and misinterpretations.

    R.A. Waldron's "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light: A Critical
Review" (Muller, [1977]) is essential reading. Petr Beckmann's "Einstein plus
2" (Golem Press, [1987]); Clifford M. Will's "Was Einstein Right?" (Oxford
University Press, [1988]) is a good contemporary exposition of many of the
arguments by a doughty (although mistaken, as I believe) defender of
Einstein's GR; a book which I first read in December 1988.  A.P. French's
"Special Relativity" also actually addresses some of the problems with its

    Eric J. Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened" [1991] is really excellent
'heretical' scientific cosmology!

     On critical-rational and methodological falsificationist lines, there
follows a discussion of instances most often quoted as problematical for
Classical Mechanics, or as corroborating Einstein's theory; and some
counter-arguments.  By reason of the assymmetry of scientific method, the
refutations are more important than the verifications.  Following Imre
Lakatos' methodology of scientific research programmes, we should use the
most accurate, best-tested research programmes with a results-measured

     Interestingly, the predictions of Einstein's theories often correspond
closely or even exactly to the published results of previous, little-known
experiments which used different theories.  It is not known whether he was
aware of any of them.  It is quite well known that he believed his own
theories to be in error, as approximations, and he welcomed efforts to refute
them with evidence, and he asked that others try to find any errors, as well
as to create more realistic theories.  (To assist in this quest, we urgently
require a permanent orbiting or lunar astronomical observatory, to facilitate
more precise measurements outside the Earth's atmosphere).

 {X1} Mercury's Perihelion Advance

     While it was for a long time the strongest argument for it, this is not
now considered a corroboration of Einstein's theory.  There was an observed,
long-standing and acknowledged anomaly between the classically predicted
movement of the planet Mercury (circling the Sun in a nearly "closed" or
stationary ellipse, with a small perihelion advance caused by the gravitation
of the other planets) and the observed advance of the perihelion (Mercury's
closest approach to the sun), a difference of 43 seconds of arc
(approximately 0.012 of a degree) per century.  (Ritz's, Weber's and
Neumann's theories of gravity as a propagated far-action also give
approximately this result).

     The existence of another - intraMercurial - planet, "Vulcan", was
suggested as a cause, but no planet "Vulcan" was found (sorry, fellow "Star
Trek" fans).  However, in 1970, the American astronomer Robert Henry Dicke
suggested a (partial, 10%) classical cause for the anomaly as due to the
oblateness of the Sun (a flattening at the poles caused by rotation).  And
the force of gravitational attraction is only a uniform central force for
orbits lying in the equatorial plane of the sun; Mercury's orbit lies 7
degrees off the plane of the ecliptic.  The sun's equatorial rotation on its
axis is 25.38 days; Mercury circles the Sun in 88 days.  The sun's magnetic
force and atmosphere extends far past Mercury; so does the "solar wind."
There is a rotating accretion disc of particles, gas and dust extending on
the plane of the ecliptic from the sun.  The other planets affect Mercury's
rotation.  Light-pressure from sunlight acts on the planets.

     Most significantly; the sun's magnetic force transfers the Sun's angular
momentum to Mercury; this will continue to advance Mercury's perihelion,
until the Sun's angular velocity and Mercury's orbital velocity become more
nearly synchronized.  Compare this with Larmor precession.

     Since general relativity predicts an additional 45" +/-5 per century
precession advance without allowing for any of these factors, it is hardly
likely to be correct.  The observed precession is also at variance with that
calculable using special relativity, as are other anomalies within the solar
system (e.g.  abberances in the moon's motion).  Interested readers may also
want to read E. Gerjuoy, "Feasibility of a non-relativistic Explanation for
the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury;" American Journal of Physics, 24:3
[1956].  Recent microwave measurements of solar system distances were
reported to be .5% different from previous measurements.  This indicates
opportunities for further interesting discoveries.  There have been no
successful measurements of any velocity of propagation for gravitational

 {X2} Eddington and Cottingham's Hyades Starlight Deflection Observations

     Johann Georg von Soldner, in [1801], calculated the bending of light
rays grazing the sun's disk.  (Also referred to in Stanley L. Jaki,
"Foundation of Physics" 8, [1978]).  A hundred years later, Einstein repeated
the prediction that starlight passing by the Sun would be deflected by the
sun's gravity, so that the apparent distance between stars either side of the
Sun when viewed during an eclipse would be smaller.

     According to Will, a deflection of 0.875 seconds of arc for
gravitational deflection only was calculated by von Soldner, using Classical
Mechanics and a hypothetical light velocity of around 300,000 km. per second.
Einstein's special relativity predicted .83 on Newtonian grounds (Einstein
[1920]); his general relativity 1.75; in [1919], it is asserted that
Eddington and Cottingham, in only one of sixteen photographs, measured 1.98 +
or - 0.12; 1.61 + or - 0.15: and six months later on November 6 that year,
Frank Dyson announced further results of 1.72 + or - 0.01 and 1.82 + or -
0.15. Eddington staged a publicity coup, announcing this at the Liverpool
Physical Society, causing Oliver Lodge to walk out.  Similar as well as
different observations have been made since that time.  This evidence is now
considered to be inconclusive with regard to Einstein's theory.

     If a ballistic theory of light is accepted, so that light has mass and
is therefore subject to gravity, then the Eddington eclipse observations of
[1919], rather than requiring acceptance of Einstein's 'curved-space' theory,
provided further data to calculate the properties of starlight from the
Hyades, and the forces governing its travel, as well as the characteristics
of the Sun.  The moon's gravity also deflects light, as was shown by Warren
Marrison, January 24, [1925].

     The sun's corona extends past Mercury's orbital path; the sun's
chromosphere extends 10,000 km from the sun's surface.  A gas-lens effect
therefore deflects starlight passing through it.  This is complicated by
extreme acoustic effects imparted to the chromosphere by events on the sun's
surface.  The "solar wind" of particles (mostly protons) extends outward
indefinitely.  The sun's intense magnetic and electrical forces can cause
deflection of light (the Zeeman and Stark effects).  There may also be a
"diffractive" as well as a gravitational deflection.  And the cooling of
Earth's atmosphere during the eclipse period must affect measurements by
altering the atmosphere's refractive index.

 {X3} Gravitational Red-Shift of Fraunhofer Lines in white-dwarf Starlight

     This evidence is also now thought to be inconclusive.  Jewel, in [1879],
as well as Ch. Fabry and H. Boisson in [1909] observed a red-shift of the
Fraunhofer absorption lines of the order of magnitude calculable by General
Relativity (they ascribed it to the effect of pressure in the absorbing
layer).  Einstein predicted a "red-shift" of the Fraunhofer absorption lines
in the spectrum of starlight received from high-density "white dwarf" stars,
which he theorised was caused by a strong gravitational effect slowing down
the atomic clock frequencies of the emitting atoms, and therefore the
frequencies of emitted starlight.  That would not necessarily be a
"relativistic" effect.

     In [1925], W. S. Adams of the Mount Wilson observatory confirmed an
observed shift of the spectral lines from the "white dwarf" star Sirius B.
However, with a ballistic theory of light, this "red-shift" is predicted as a
gravitationally - induced energy loss, or velocity loss, with a consequent
frequency reduction.  As with the previous example, the effect could as well
support the argument that light rays have mass, and could have been
extrapolated from the work of Newton, von Soldner, Ritz and others.  Escape
velocity for the Sun is 617 km/second.  Escape velocity for the "white dwarf"
star Sirius B is calculated to be 7000 km/second.  When the escape velocity
is greater than c, this has the effect of the "Schwartzschild radius."

 {X4} "E = MC2" and Nuclear Energy

     It is sometimes said by those knowing no better, that the "E = mc
squared" mass-energy equivalence thesis - and the actuality of atomic energy
- somehow "prove" Einstein's theory, as if explosions could prove theories.
However, as Popper, O'Rahilly, Waldron and others have shown, the "E = mc
squared" equation was and is in fact fully derivable from Classical
Mechanics.  Much more misleading is the idea that matter is conceptually
reducible to energy.  The sub-atomic particle constituents of the nucleus
(all undiscovered until the 1930's, and therefore unknown to Einstein as of
1905 or 1916) are released in nuclear fusion and fission reactions as
high-velocity and therefore high-energy particles of various kinds.  About a
half of one percent of reaction material is translated to electromagnetic
radiation in fusion explosions; rather less than that in fission explosions.
Even the release of orbiting electrons liberates considerable energy (the
angular momentum of the electron around the nucleus).  Technically, all that
is necessary for nuclear energy is an understanding of the idea of chain
reactions, and suitably selected and arranged materials.

     The existence of varying possible energy relationships between invariant
mass and variable angular and translational velocity does not require
acceptance of the erroneous idea that mass and energy are therefore entirely
equivalent and entirely interchangeable.  Extensive research on the fusion
interactions between protons (with an energy equivalent to .6 MeV) and
lithium nuclei at STP (forming a beryllium nucleus, which decays into two
alpha particles with an energy equivalent of 16.8 MeV) will illuminate this
issue further.

 E = mc2 derived classically

 A  |                       |  B


     A hollow cylinder of length l and mass M is at rest.  A short flash of
radiation is emitted from A and is absorbed by B, imparting a momentum Y to
it.  A at emission experiences an impulse Y, the tube recoils through x and
stops when the radiation is absorbed at B.  Then, if m is the mass of the
radiation which moves through l-x,

      Yt = Mx = m(l-x).

     First suppose the velocity is c relative to the "aether", i.e.  l-x =
ct. Therefore Y = mc.  Next suppose the velocity is c relative to A, i.e.  l
= ct.     Hence

     Y = mc/(1+m/M) = mc,

     since m/M is negligible.  In either case, since Y = W/c, we have W =

  {X5} Stellar red-shift

     The astronomer Edwin Hubble found a correlation between the "red-shift"
of starlight from nebulae and their brightness (and therefore, it is
proposed, their likely distance).  Nebular "red-shift" - interpreted as a
Doppler-shift - is now used as a supporting argument for a hypothesized
recession of the distant stars themselves (the fanciful and much too
credulously accepted "big-bang" and "expanding universe" hypotheses).  There
are, however, many other and additional possible explanations for the
"red-shift" of starlight, including light ray interaction with interstellar
matter; photon-photon interactions (See "Non-velocity redshifts and
photon-photon interaction" by J.C. Pecker, A.P. Roberts and J-P. Vigier in
Nature 237, [1972] pp. 227-9); energy loss due to traversing the Penzias and
Wilson background radiation; and even the possible energy loss of light rays
over timespans of millions of years.  (Just for the record, Paul Dirac
advanced an interesting hypothesis of the evolution of matter, that the more
distant (thus older) stars were molecularly different, and their light is
red-shifted as compared with the newer light from the nearer stars.  Early
observations even supported a theory of energy loss - hence a frequency drop
- over time).

     A "big bang" cosmological theory (implying a past point origin of the
universe, and finite contents) cannot possibly be correct for a universe of
infinite extent with indefinitely extensive contents of indestructible
matter.  Only a positivist could accept an argument that an empty universe is
equivalent to a nonexistent universe.  Apart from the absurd initial
assumption (an empty universe within which something suddenly happens
acausally at just one point!), there are many other considerations which make
the "big bang" theory intellectually utterly unsatisfactory: the requirement
for entirely different - even inexplicable - "singularity" laws of physics at
a starting point, for instance.  The distance of only a few stars is known
within an accuracy of 2%, all of them closer than three parsecs.  There was
no "big bang."  The work of Hannes Alfven, Eric J. Lerner. Grote Reber and
their colleagues is of great and ongoing interest here.

     I think that the idea of an evolving, continuous-process, infinite and
eternal open universe with emergent properties is truer and more worthy of
study, as well as being more exciting and interesting.  No entropic
"heat-death" in this our RD universe!  Gravitational and electrostatic forces
reconcentrate the photons into new aggregations of matter and thence into new

 {X6} High-Energy Particle Interactions

     In the 'Sixties, I spent many happy months on the Fourth Floor of the
Royal Fort Physics Building at Bristol University, viewing projections of
many thousands of synchronized trimetrogon 3-view CERN bubble-chamber event
Schlieren photographs (we were then looking for pi-mesons), and this
instilled a lasting skepticism as to the often-dogmatic assertions made by
some particle physicists; we should always remember that all observations are
themselves inevitably theory-impregnated.  My experience also helped me to
acquire the skills to visualize and interpret 3-D images of the particle
interactions for myself.

     Waldron and Beckmann provide the theory to describe the interactions
between electrons in a fully relational manner.  The self-induced
electromagnetic mass is velocity-dependent.  The effects of accelerated
high-energy particle interactions is sometimes adduced in support of the
thesis of "relativistic" high-energy particles.  The reason for this is that
some interactions of high-velocity particles with other particles and with
magnetic force show very high energy levels.

     By way of comparison, nuclear energy is released from the nucleus when
high-energy particles strike the nucleus.  No-one (yet) asserts that the
nuclear energy released is due to "relativistic" high-energy particles or
"relativistic" nuclei.  Some alternative explanations include: particles are
travelling at "superluminary" velocities; particles have high spin energy;
internal component forces are being released; the particles are accelerated
by the addition of inertial masses.  Circular-path ring accelerators pose
interesting questions; for if Special Relativity cannot apply (because of
acceleration or Absolute Rotation), how then could there be "relativistic"
effects?  This is another area where revised theories should assist in
valuable new discoveries.  The Large Hadron Collider has proton-proton 
impact velocities of > 1.98c.

 {X7} Direct Measurement of the speed of light from moving sources

           V A C U U M

     Pulsing accelerated twin-beam light source.

 S >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
 S'>- - - - - -|                   |
               |<------ 3 m ------>|

       Photoreceptors 3 m.  apart
       connected to a dual-trace oscilloscope

     Free-electron lasers work by accelerating a beam of electrons into a
specially configured region of magnetic force, which causes the electrons to
change direction and emit light.  Careful design can produce a laser effect
at a wide range of frequencies from microwave through ultraviolet.  If this
lasing light is created and measured in vacuo, by the above described
experimental arrangement, without dispersion, we might be able to show
velocity addition.  Further research into Cerenkov radiation (and its reverse
form) should also be illuminating.

     Velocity addition is easily shown in a classical context by means of a
sealed and evacuated cylinder, within which a light beam shines
intermittently North to South onto an internal detector, which enables
velocity to be calculated between emission and detection.  An indicator light
on the exterior of the container is lit when the N-S velocity is c.  If we
then travel due North away from the cylinder, while observing the lit
indicator, we are surely entitled to add our velocity to the indicated
velocity of the beam inside the container, are we not?

 {X8} Variable (Eclipsing) Binary Star systems

     I think this class of natural astronomical phenomenon is one of the most
beautiful illustrative examples of so many of the scientific issues we are
discussing.  It was advanced by de Sitter [1913] to argue against velocity
addition in the emitted starlight.

| A*-----------x-----------*B V
V |            ^           |
  |        rotational      |
  |        barycentre      |
  |                        |
  | v=c+V        v'=c-V    |
  |                        |
  | pn=pc x v   pn'=pc x v'|
  |                        |
  |                        |
  | v                      | v'

    V = speed of rotation: c = 3 x 10^8 km/second: v = ray velocity:
    pn=photon count = frequency: pc = pn at c:

     A binary pair star system of two identical stars A and B rotates around
its barycentre at an angular velocity of 30 km/second.  At a distance of 26
parsecs, the difference in signal arrival if that velocity difference were
maintained would be six days.  If the rotation period is 12 days, then in six
days star B has moved to the position of star A.  As explained by Jerry B.
Marion's excellent textbook "Physics and the Physical Universe" (J. Wiley and
Sons, [1971]), a variation in light velocity would cause each of the two
stars to be apparently in two positions (because light from each star's
different positions arrives continuously irrespective of velocity).

     There is a spectroscopically observed doppler red shift from star A,
while there is a corresponding blue shift from star B.  (It is interesting to
note that in the Michelson-Morley and other experiments, this would have been
considered as evidencing a velocity difference in the light sources).

    Normal light intensity
 ___ _____________ _____________ _____
   | |           | |           | |
   | |           | |           | |

      It has been asserted that the graph of binary star systems' observed
light intensity over time is always of this kind.  Actual astronomical
observations falsify that assertion.

     The observed eclipse effect only occurs when light from the further star
is blocked by the nearer star.  We are then observing these stars in the
plane of the ecliptic.  The gas disc in the plane of the ecliptic absorbs the
light from each star, and re-emits it, frequency-shifted, at an identical
velocity.  This was discussed by J. G. Fox (Am. J. Phys., 30, 297 [1962] and
33, 1 [1965]).  We were thereafter [1975] asked to believe that, although all
previous arguments based on eclipsing binary stars falsifying ballistic
theories were in fact wrong, an argument based on x-ray emissions should now
be accepted...  Ho hum...

 {X9} Transverse Doppler Effect

     This is a complex and interesting area, which has not been accounted for
entirely to my satisfaction.

     Alfred O'Rahilly's book has an interesting discussion of this effect, as
does Petr Beckmann's [1989].  Voight's equation could be appropriate in
diverging or convering spherically propagating light sources.  Ives and
Stillwell produced a collimated beam of fast-moving hydrogen atoms and
molecules.  A spectrograph received light from the beam nearly end-on, and
from a mirror.  The difference between the mean of the displaced lines and
the undisplaced line (from atoms not in the beam) were measured.  Lines of
atomic and molecular hydrogen were used.  Velocities from 4 x 10^-3 c to 7 x
10^-3 c were used.  The variation reported was in accordance with Voight's

     This result has been subject to various interpretations, quite possibly
with more to come; according to R.W.Ditchburn the transverse Doppler effect
has not been observed for light.  R.A. Waldron provides a full ballistic
interpretation of Ives and Stillwell.  Interestingly, Ives did not regard his
work as confirming Einstein's theory.

 {X10} Accelerated electrons under magnetic force

     'Electromagnetic mass increase.'

     If the mass of an accelerated electron subject to a magnetic force
actually increases, this should be measurable in a reference frame co-moving
with the electron (i.e. the electron's rest-frame).  What actually happens is
described by Berkson as follows:

    "When a charged particle is travelling, it produces a magnetic field.
When we attempt to speed up or slow down the particle, the particle cuts its
own magnetic lines of force, which causes a force to be exerted upon the
particle.  As can be recalled from Faraday's work, self-induction always
opposes the change in the current - now the motion of the charged particle.
Thus self-induction resists any accelerations, just as if the particle has a
greater mass, and the extra mass becomes greater as the particle goes faster,
since the force thereby created is more intense.  The mass in the
longitudinal and transverse directions is different, as the configuration of
the lines of force is different.

    The idea can be taken further: the effect is not merely confined to
self-induction, but the mutual induction of the various parts of the
electron; in fact, the main part of the effect is due to the mutual influence
of the infinitesimal currents resulting from the motion of each bit of charge
on the electron.  The intensity of the effect of mutual induction depends on
how close currents are together. In fact, by assuming the electron is bigger
or smaller - and thus that the currents created by its motion are more or
less densely distributed - differing amounts of the effective inertial mass
of the electron can be ascribed to the electromagnetic effects of induction.
In fact, by choosing the proper radius for the electron, the _entire_ mass
can be ascribed to the inductive effects!" - 'Fields of Force', p. 287.

TITLE: A Scientific Research Programme of Relational Dynamics  --    [T3]
TEXT: The basis of Relational Dynamics is the single principle, that 
the laws of physics have the same form in all frames of reference in 
uniform translation, and are the same everywhere. It extends Classical 
Mechanics into the realms presently occupied by Special and General 
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

 Dimensional Analysis of Measure Ratios: Mass = M.  Length = L.  Time = T.

 [1] MATTER IN INFINITE SPACE: Material objects having extension exist 
in a space which is without intrinsic properties, and which exists to 
infinity in every direction.

uniform and unidirectionally forward, with an instantaneous present 
time which occurs at the same moment -- simultaneously -- everywhere. 
Signal intervals can be recalculated to achieve corrected accurate 
predictive and retrodictive data.

 [3] EQUIVALENT GALILEAN RELATIVITY: All forces, material coordinate 
positions and velocities are relational; and all co-ordinate systems 
or frames of reference in uniform motion relative to one another are 
Galileian systems.  There is no privileged or "absolute" reference 
frame.  There is full addition of velocities across co-ordinate 
systems or reference frames.

mechanics have the same form in every inertial frame of reference or 
coordinate system.

 [5] CLASSICAL MECHANICS: INERTIA: The stasis or movement of anything does not
change unless and until a force acts upon it.

 [6] CLASSICAL MECHANICS: ACTION: A change in movement of anything is
proportional to the force acting upon it, and is made in the direction 
of the force which acts upon it.  (f = ma = ML/T^2; Force = mass times 

 [7] CLASSICAL MECHANICS: REACTION: For every action, there is an equal
reaction in the opposite direction.  (f1 = -f2).

 [8] RELATIONAL GRAVITATIONAL FORCE: The relational gravitational 
 attraction between massy objects is proportional to their 
 masses, and is proportional to the inverse square of the distance 
 between their centres of mass.  If gravitational force should prove 
 to be propagated at a finite rate, and objects be moving radially 
 relative to each other, then the additional velocity-dependent 
 modification for propagated spherical forces, Woldemar
 Voight's [1887] Doppler equations (later known as "Lorentz 
 Transformations") would be required, as a first approximation to 
 non-linear equations for delayed interaction over a distance.

 [9] RELATIONAL ELECTRIC FORCE: The relational electric attraction or 
repulsion between charged objects is inverse-square proportional to 
the distance between them.  If "changes in electric force prove to be 
propagated at a finite rate, and objects be moving relative to each 
other, then the additional velocity-dependent modification for 
propagated spherical forces --  Woldemar Voight's [1887] Doppler 
equations (later known as "Lorentz Transformations") -- are required, 
as a good first approximation to non-linear equations for delayed 
interaction over a distance via a field of force.

    Coulomb's Law and Voight's equations yield Maxwell's equations 
without further assumptions, as proved by Leigh Page, Yale Professor 
of Mathematical Physics [1912] and [1913].  Electrodynamics is fully 
deriveable from electrostatics via Classical Mechanics.

A. O'Rahilly, "Electromagnetics", Longmans & U. Cork, [1938] & Dover 

R.A. Waldron, "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light", F. Muller 

R.A. Waldron, "Electric Forces", The Radio and Electronic Engineer, 
Vol. 51 No. 11/12, pp. 553 to 560, November/December [1981].

Leigh Page, "The Derivation of Electrodynamics from Electrostatics", 
Yale University, [1912] and [1913].

 [10] RELATIONAL MAGNETIC FORCE: The relational magnetic attraction 
or repulsion between north and south magnets is inverse-square 
proportional to the distance between them.  If changes in magnetic 
force prove to be propagated at a finite rate, and objects be moving 
radially relative to each other, then the additional 
velocity-dependent modification for propagated spherical forces, 
Woldemar Voight's [1887] Doppler equations (later known as "Lorentz 
Transformations") would be required, as a first approximation to 
non-linear equations for delayed interaction over a distance via 
fileds of force.

    (The [static] lines of magnetic force follow from the force 
    interactions as described by Poisson's equations).

A. O'Rahilly, "Electromagnetics", Longmans & U. Cork, [1938]; Dover 

R.A. Waldron, "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light", F. Muller 

R.A. Waldron, "Electric Forces", The Radio and Electronic Engineer, 
Vol.  51 No. 11/12, pp. 553 to 560, November/December [1981].

Electromagnetic structures which are radiated and absorbed 
('photons') have intrinsic mass, and this mass occurs in in multiples 
of a minimum mass.  This mass, when in linear translation and with up 
to three axes of classical rotation, ('spins') as well as three 
degrees of vibration, gives rise to quantum effects.  Such 
electromagnetic structures ('photons') are made from the same material 
as other forms of matter - negatively charged microparticles (which we 
can call electrinos); positively-charged microparticles, (which we may 
call positrinos).  There are also neutral (perhaps bound-pair) 
microparticles, (presently called neutrinos).

In free space the velocity of emittance of a radiated photon 
_relative to its source_ is constant at L/T = 299,792.485 + or - 
.0012 km/second.  'c'.

E = hv, where E is the energy value of the photon; v is its 
frequency; and h is Planck's constant, which has the measure-ratio of 
ML2/T, and is presently calculated as 6.6262 x 10-34 Joules/second. 

There is accordingly a lower as well as an upper limit to photon 
mass.  Relevant equations may be found in R.A. Waldron, [1977] and 

These quantized electromagnetic structures, in conjunction with 
Beckmann's [1987] theory of stable electron orbits, provide the basis 
for developing the quantized dynamics of particle systems, including 
atoms and molecules.  (See the Carr-Parrinello method).

R.A. Waldron, "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light", F. Muller 

R.A. Waldron, "The Spinning Photon", Speculations in Science and 
Technology, Elsevier Sequoia S.A., 5 April [1982].

P. Beckmann, "Einstein plus Two", Golem Press [1987].

 [12] CONSERVATION LAWS: There is full conservation of mass; full 
conservation of energy over time; and full conservation of momentum. 

Mass is invariant with respect to relative velocities, as are also 
length and time.

[  Copyright Anthony Hugh Hollick, Bristol, England.  February 28 [2000] ]

       It may assist understanding to think about RD like this:

[A] Take Classical Mechanics: (Start with T.W.B. Kibble's fine text):
[B] Add relational electric and magnetic and gravitational forces:
[C] Add a velocity of force propagation ('c'), which delays far-action:
[D] Add a full ballistic ('particle' or 'photon') theory of EM radiation.

  "Classical Mechanics is everywhere exactly 'right' wherever its 
  concepts can be applied." -- Werner Heisenberg.
    (That is, everywhere!)
                      ----------- * * * * * -----------
[ Copyright Anthony Hollick and The Rainbow Bridge Foundation [1990-2000 ]
================================< E O T >===================================

   | Anduril@STARGATE.uk.net         *    Anthony Hugh (Tony) Hollick  |
- <*> -------------------------*   *   *   *------------------------- <*> -
   | Rainbow Bridge Foundation   *       *  Centre for Liberal Studies |
- <*> -------------------------*   *   *   *------------------------- <*> -
   | 4 Grayling House, Canford Rd:   *    Bristol BS9 3NU Tel: 9501894 |