“Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.’’ [quoted in “What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck” Saturday Evening Post, October 26th, 1929, p. 11]
A Religious Philosophy posing as Science
Imagination is the basis of much of modern ‘science’. Two previous posts outlined the lack of evidence for a mobile Earth, both pre-and-post 1905, which is the year ‘The Science’ issued Einstein’s opus magnus on Relativity. The Special Theory of Relativity’s main purpose was to remove the inconvenient relevancy of studies which could not find a mobile Earth. Einstein through the abstraction and ‘imagination’ of STR sought re-impose the accepted dogma of heliocentricity.
STR achieves this by erecting a universe with no fixed absolutes, no rules, and in essence, no logic. In this fantasy world, no mechanical measurement is needed to prove that the Earth moves, because none can be made. This is because pace STR, a moving Earth which is an unproven assumption, negates the ‘law of inertial reference’ and makes any calibrated measurement impossible. This is called an illogical tautology. What they are saying is that the Earth moves and we don’t need to have mechanical, physical proof. We should just accept the premise.
Proof?
For 500 years our world-views have been irrevocably impacted by the purported fact that the Earth is moving at the astonishing pace of 108.000 km / hour through the universe. Yet the proofs are simply not in evidence. As Einstein and all physicists and astronomers have admitted, there are no mechanical proofs detailing and confirming that the Earth is hurtling along at 30 km per second.
The few who have thumbed through Copernicus’ 1543 exposition on the revolution of the orbits, will know that maybe 20 pages try to explain the idea. The rest, some 180 pages is filler, full of tables and observations that don’t prove heliocentricity and could as easily prove geo-centricity. The Copernican model was first and foremost a philosophical exercise, yet has been assumed since the late 16th century to be ‘correct’. Newton’s entire system, which Einstein energetically tried to uphold, is based on Copernican acceptance, but like Einstein, Newton provided no proof.
Since the late 16th century ‘The Science’ has never bothered to verify the Copernican claim. This is not a scientific approach and is based on what is called an ‘appeal to authority’. The reality is that every physicist and astronomer since the 17th century has assumed Copernican veracity, appealing to various scientific figures as sources of proof. This includes Einstein, who wrote that Copernicanism should be taken as the starting point. This is a philosophical a priori belief, not a fact establshed from scientific measurement.
[An example is Gailelo. Any who have studied Galileo know that he did not prove heliocentricity. Indeed Galileo may have recanted his Copernican faith.At the end of this post is provided an interesting letter that no one knows about, dictated by Galileo in which he apparently apostasies from the Copernican theology (see footnote A)].
It must move!
Even though no mechanical proof exists that the Earth is mobile, Einstein demanded that we still believe it moves at the astonishing pace of 108.000 km / hour, an incomprehensible velocity (speech Kyoto Japan, Dec. 14 1922, ‘How I created the theory of Relativity’). Relativity cannot be interpreted unless one understands that it is far more a philosophical and imaginative framework, than a scientific endeavor.
By 1905 Einstein and a small group within ‘The Science’ had to save the heliocentric-phenomena which was being assaulted by interferometer calculations, which showed that the Earth’s movement, as measured by these light-sensitive machines, is about ~5 km per second, not the purported or expected 30 km / second. Many other 19th century experiments also failed to confirm diurnal rotation. In fact all of these experiments called into question heliocentricity, suggesting that the Earth was immobile.
This leads a lay investigator to 2 very important scientists that unfortunately are largely unknown, Georges Sagnac and D.C Miller. Both were committed Copernicans, who in the early 20th century, attempted to refute the failures of those dreaded interferometer experimenters that so perplexed Einstein. These Copernicans, like Einstein, just ‘knew that the Earth flew around the Sun’ at 108.000 km per hour. They only needed to refute – with mechanical proof – the experimental observations of the interferometers.
For brevity’s sake this post will focus on Georges Sagnac and the following will look at the well known American physicist Dayton C. Miller.
There have been few interferometer results that have been more disconcerting to Relativists and the Copernicans, and more ignored, than the 1913 experiment performed by the French physicist, Georges Sagnac. When you understand what Sagnac discovered, you will quickly comprehend why Winston Smith and friends from ‘The Science’ wanted to memory hole his true findings and mendaciously claim that Sagnac’s work supports STR and heliocentricity. It doesn’t.
Georges Sagnac was a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Paris and was a well-known scientific savant. He assisted Pierre Curie in determining the properties of radium and aided in the discovery of secondary X-rays and various other optical effects. His interferometer results have been repeated several times, so it is very curious why the ‘The Science’ establishment has been so averse to publicizing Sagnac’s work the same way they advertised and still propagate Einstein’s. Sagnac’s 1913 experiment employed the same principle as the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, using closed-circle rotational interferometer (or interfering light beam) measurements. Sagnac explains his own setup:
“Using interfering beams, reflected by four mirrors placed at the edge of the revolving platform, which are superimposed in opposite directions upon one self-same horizontal circuit encompassing a definite area S. The rotating assemblage includes also the luminous source (a small electric lamp), and the receiver – a fine-grained photographic plate, which registers the interference fringes localized at the focus of a telescope. Photographs designated cw are obtained during a clockwise rotation of the platform; photos designated ccw are obtained during a counter-clockwise rotation of the same frequency. In these two kinds of photos, the center of the central fringe presents two different positions. I measure this displacement of the center of interference.” (Comptes Rendus de l’ Académie des Sciences (Paris) 157, 1913, pp. 708-710, 1410- 1413)
The difference between the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Sagnac experiment is that Michelson’s machine directs the light beam to traverse back and forth along the diameter of a rotating table, whereas Sagnac’s directs the light beam to travel in a closed circle on a rotating table. The Michelson-Morley experiment attempted to detect the translational movement of the Earth (or its mobility), whereas the Sagnac experiment sought to detect the rotation of the Earth (or, in geocentric terms, the rotation of the universe around the Earth).
In ‘Relativity-speak’, Sagnac’s interferometer machine is itself the ‘observer’, and its light source and reflecting mirrors are contrived to be co-moving and co-rotating in one and the same fixed system. The only thing that Sagnac added from outside the system (unlike Michelson) was putting the turntable in motion. Sagnac’s hypothesis was that in a rotational system which represented moving objects as given by STR theory, it should be straightforward to detect and measure movement using light wave interference observations and prove as Einstein claimed, that the speed of light is independent of the source object.
Sagnac’s results
In his measurements Sagnac showed that one of the light beams took a longer time to reach the mirror moving away from it than the other light beam whose mirror was moving toward it. This meant that a key postulate of Special Relativity, which holds that the speed of light is the same for all observers, was invalid. This meant that there were obviously two different speeds for the light beams traveling the same distance. Light speed was therefore not a constant. What was the cause of the one light beam traveling slower?
Sagnac thought this effect was due to the ether impeding the movement or velocity of the light beam, a resistance generated perhaps by the rotating table. This would prove an ether, another tenet that STR did not support. Given that the interferometer was the real, objective ‘observer’, Sagnac recorded fringe shifts in that observation, demonstrating that the speed of light was not constant. You could only argue against Sagnac’s results by invoking an ‘observer’ to be outside the system. The main elements in deflecting light from a ‘constant rate’ would be gravity and the ether of course. Ether was anathema to the Relativists, so too was an inconstant speed of light.
Yet we have the 1916 admission by Einstein that the speed of light was not a constant. This confirmation was given 11 years after STR and 3 years after the Sagnac experiment. It was met with the expected fury by ‘The Science’ which was already banking on the constant speed of light in the non-existent ‘vacuum’ (ie nothingness) of space. Now the complex maths would need to be reworked, how dare Einstein!
At the end of section 2 of his article on the foundations of the general theory, Einstein writes: “The principle of the constancy of the vacuum speed of light requires a modification.” [Max Abraham and others ‘took Einstein to task about this deviation from his earlier stance’. (E. J. Post, Physics Today, 35 (6), 11 (1982)].
What say the Copernicans?
To counter the Sagnac observations, especially the measurements which called into question the speed of light, the Copernicans fell back onto the theory of General Relativity, not Special Relativity (a standard trick used by Copernicans). In the shell game of ‘which Relativity do you mean?’, the Sunworshippers misdirected the analysis from STR and invoked GTR. This is not uncommon within ‘The Science’.
Copernican rejoinders included:
1) Special Relativity does not work for rotating systems (meaning that any systems of motion with acceleration are left unaddressed by STR which is true); or,
2) STR does work in rotating systems, but only if we add in ‘metric tensors’ and other maths that are formally outside STR (contradicting the first response of course); or,
3) STR cannot be measured from any location on a rotating Earth, since this means the frame of reference is not inertial (this is tautological, since it assumes that the Earth is moving, which the test is trying to confirm); or,
4) The mirror is moving and while the light beam is going around the table, the mirror has moved from its original position which means that one of the light beams must travel further and the other light beam has a shorter distance to travel. The discrepancy between the two light beams is purely mechanical.[1]
The problem with the 4th explanation is that the claim of mirror motion is being made from an ‘observer’ outside the system who sees the mirror move to another location. This is not what the experiment is measuring. The ‘observer’ is inside the system and sees no such spatial displacement. So, this explanation is invalid.
The issue with all 4 objections, is that Sagnac clearly demonstrated absolute motion which nullifies Special Relativity, which does not have absolutes. Ignoring this, the Relativists will interpret the ‘Sagnac effect’, through their worldview that this is evidence for the absolute rotation of the Earth and invoke the General Theory of Relativity which does have absolutes! But even this is wrong.
From a cosmological perspective, Sagnac’s absolute results could also be used to prove that the universe rotates around the Earth (geo-centricity). Given the fact of the ether and the existence of absolute space, both of which are denied by STR, this could well be a stronger argument. Here again we have ‘The Science’ making word-salads to justify its models and ignoring other possible explanations.
‘Science’ and its Shell Games
Einstein’s Specical Theory of Relativity is summarised below:
It is in essence a theory of Space-Time
Based on 2 postulates:
Laws of physics remain the same for all observers who are in uniform motion to each other (no acceleration exists in STR)
Speed of light is independent of the speed of any other object, including its source (ie a constant in a vacuum, meaning absolute nothingness)
Consequences:
Everything is relative (or the relativity of simultaneity)
Time Dilation (the more gravity, the slower the clock rate)
Energy equivalence (ie E=mc2, or energy is equal to the calculation of mass x the speed of light squared, with light as a constant speed)
Used as a buttress for the theory of heliocentricity (Earth is in an orbital and relative motion to the Sun, and our milky way system is in an orbital and relative motion around the center of our galaxy etc)
In reality there are many experiments including Michelson’s and Sagnac’s which are at odds with both STR and heliocentricity and which at the very least cast long shadows of doubt on Copernican theology. However, for ‘The Science’, mechanical proof is not relevant. It simply and effortlessly moves the debate from STR to General Relativity and ignores results which refute STR. As physicist Tom Bethell writes:
Einstein knew of the experiment (Sagnac’s), and in fact discussed it with Michelson in Chicago in 1921….STR applies only to inertial reference frames, in which no unbalanced forces are allowed. But because Michelson-Gale depended on the Earth’s rotation, centrifugal forces and curvilinear paths are inevitably present. Therefore, it was non-inertial. A similar argument was used against the Sagnac experiment, in which the apparatus was rotated. The equations of special relativity cannot incorporate an acceleration even as small as the three thousandths of one-g experienced in Michelson Gale.
But both the Sagnac and the Michelson-Gale results could be predicted using the complicated mathematics of general relativity. So, the Einsteinians succeeded in turning the tables on their critics. Instead of falsifying special relativity, these two experiments were construed as having confirmed general relativity.
A true magic show. Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity could possibly explain the results of Sagnac and Michelson in a very indirect and roundabout method, but only by invoking multidimensional complex tensors in space-time and using non- Euclidean geodesics. It is fair to say that few in the world could or do understand any of it, a point made by Dingle in his critique of Relativity. For the Relativists Occam’s razor is replaced by a threshing machine. Far more obvious conclusions followed from the interferometer experiments which ‘The Science’ was took great pains to avoid. Once again complex mathematical theories, divorced from reality, are trotted out as ‘proof’.
Einstein wrong again
These rationalisations of the Relativitists are brazen yet without merit. In his 1920 Leiden speech and related paper, Einstein insisted that the ether of General Relativity was “not ponderable,” that is, it has no measurable presence. In his 1905 STR theory Einstein had banished the ether. Now 15 years later with his GTR he was trying to resurrect the ether, but giving it no mass, no weight, no attributes. It was just another fudge. It allows the Relativists to invoke an ether, when necessary, but not to give it dimensions that it would negate STR.
Einstein also said that ether cannot be discovered because it is not a part of ‘our dimension’. What does that even mean? Which dimension? No one knows, but he probably meant the space-time dimension which has been disproven by quantum mechanics.
So much for Einstein’s limpid interest in observational results. It should be emphasized that the Einstein cult can provide no proof of a single physical experiment by Einstein supporting his ideas. Yet despite the Relativist propaganda, after the Sagnac and Michelson measurements, most physicists knew that the results contradicted STR and rendered the theory null and void. (A list of such sources is provided at the end [2])
Even the faithful bullhorn of ‘The Science’, the New York Times, partially admitted that STR was disproven in an article on the Michelson-Gale experiment in January 1925 where the byline states, “Ether Drift is Confirmed”. There was no way around this since a full ether drift of nearly 24-hours was measured by Michelson-Gale. According to Einstein, the ‘imponderable ether’ cannot be tracked by time, but a tracking of time is precisely what Michelson-Gale demonstrated for ether, since it made one light beam return in a shorter time than the other, exactly what Sagnac had found.
However, as ‘The Science’ usually does, instead of admitting that the experiment disproved both Special and General Relativity, the article’s headline is “Michelson Proves Einstein Theory.” It is to laugh.
The Copernicans play the 2 Relativity theories against each other, using one to intercede for the other as needed. This ensures that STR becomes virtually unfalsifiable because it can never be assessed in the real world, since the real world does not contain any inertial frames free of unbalanced forces.
Consequently, Special Relativity exists only as a theoretical phantom to allow Einstein and his followers to escape the consequences of experimental results.
An obvious example is to use STR to supposedly explain the angular motion of the Earth around the Sun (using the Lorentz transformation), but not allow it to be assessed for the angular motion of the Earth on its axis (not allowing the use of the Lorentz transformation). This is a fraud given that both angular motions are considered non-inertial.
What the experiment really means
Sagnac made no excuses for his results:
“The result of the measurements demonstrates that, in ambient space, light is propagated with a velocity V0, independent of the movement as a whole of the luminous source O and the optical system. That is a property of space which experimentally characterizes the luminiferous ether. The interferograph measures, as ¼ zλV0, the relative circulation of the ether within the closed optical circuit.” (Journal de Physique et le Radium, fifth series, 4, 1914, pp. 177-195.)
Ether was present and the light speed was inconstant. So predictable and precise is this ‘Sagnac effect’, that it is used routinely in modern technology such as GPS systems, devices to sense rotation, and in mechanical gyroscopes. In fact, whenever the need arises for inertial navigation (i.e., an absolute frame from which to measure all other coordinates), the Sagnac effect is always included. It is therefore a valid scientific principle that STR and Copernicans have to deal with.[see footnote 3]
Some important conclusions from this experiment include:
1- The Sagnac effect is a universal principle for all electromagnetic counter-propagating beams, as well as neutron beams, (de Broglie) waves and even sound waves, that is, any waves which travel in opposite paths.
2- All the various beams and waves which were tested showed the same time differences, both for matter and light, independent of the physical nature of the interference. These various testing elements show that the Sagnac effect is not dependent on the nature of light, per se, but solely on the principle of absolute motion.
3- Ring laser experiments have confirmed the Sagnac effect to within one part in 1020 a truly remarkable verification (see sources at the end).
Sagnac’s experiment has been replicated many times with the same results, including.
1921: Physicist Ludwik Silberstein (in Journal Optical Society of America 5: 291-307, 1921), who discusses the difficulty Relativity theory might have in explaining optical rotational phenomena.
1902-1933: Dayton C. Miller (next post)
1925: Michelson and Gale using a similar device to Sagnac’s which produced the same results. (The Effect of the Earth’s Rotation on the Velocity of Light,” Part I, by A. A. Michelson. The Astrophysical Journal, April 1925, Vol .LXI, No. 3).
1925: B. Pogany repeated Sagnac’s experiment with the same results (Über die Wiederholung des Harres – Sagnaschen Versuches. Ann. Phys., 1926, 80, p. 217-231).
1927: Dufour and Prunier garnered the same measurements (Comptes Rendus 204, 1925, 1937).
1963: Similar results were later confirmed with modern equipment and high precision by W. M. Macek and D. T. M. Davis, Jr., and as described in Applied Physics Letters 2, 1963, pp. 67-68.
(sources at the end provide a more comprehensive list)
In general, Sagnac’s results and those of other experimenters bring science right back to the era of Maxwell, Fresnel, Arago, Airy and many others in the 19th century. The results are so solid and irrefutable that current physics finds itself in the untenable position of having to use Sagnac’s discovery to make their Relativistic formulas function, even though it negates STR.
But it gets even more interesting.
The Coriolis effect
The Sagnac effect which proves that light travels at different speeds, is in essence, not due to rotation which eliminates acceleration as the cause, but other ‘forces’ that ‘The Science’ will never consider in its current paradigmatic worldview. The Sagnac experiments confirmed that in the Earth’s northern hemisphere, a counter-clockwise light beam travels faster than the clockwise beam, but in the southern hemisphere, the clockwise light beam travels faster than the counter-clockwise beam (R. Sungenis, Galileo was wrong, 2017, chapter 6).
This indicates that a ‘force’ is acting on one of the light beams, but a force that goes in opposite directions depending on which hemisphere the experiment is conducted. The only force that could do this is the Coriolis force which needs another post to go through, but in essence this is the force pushed on the Earth, or any stellar object, by the general weight of the Universe. Further, since the Sagnac effect occurs both in the northern and southern hemispheres but with opposite speeds for the two light beams, respectively, this means there should be no Sagnac effect at the Earth’s equator, which serves as further negation of helio-centricity and STR.
In the heliocentric system it is impossible to link the Coriolis force as a cause for the Sagnac effect since within heliocentricity the Coriolis is considered only an artifact instead of a force. Indeed, if it can be shown that the Sagnac effect is due to the Coriolis force, this would likely induce ‘The Science’ to consider a geocentric system which would mean a complete rewriting of modern physics (Sankar Hajra of the Indian Physical Society in Pramana Journal of Physics (2016) 87:71).
The above is definitely worth pursuing and is information you won’t get from the online consensus, ChatGPT or a physics textbook.
Bottom Line
‘The Science’ will never mention what is outlined in this post or in the previous two posts. That philosophical-magician Einstein, who never conducted a single experiment to prove his ideas, never summoned the energy or interest to refute the mechanical measurements which slaughtered his theory and heliocentricity. Who needs proof when you can issue more ‘tensor calculus’ maths no one understands? There is not a single reference in Einstein’s writings, nor in almost all the hagiographies monumentalising his greatness, on such trivial details as physical disproofs. He and ‘The Science’ knew all about these experiments which contradicted STR and Copernican dogma and they chose to ignore them.
Sagnac’s ‘effect’ is a scientific fact found in practical, physical technologies and proofs. By itself, the findings that light has different speeds and that there is an ether nullifies and negates STR. We can map Sagnac’s efforts to those from the 19th century where we have Arago, Fizeau, Airy, Lodge et al disproving diurnal rotation and Earth movement, and Michelson and others unable to record more than an 8 km / second movement in the Earth’s mobility, against an expected 30 km / second. The evidence against STR and heliocentricity is thereby impressive and not a domain of ‘conspiracy theorists’ and toothless Catholics barking and braying at idols.
The next post will discuss the 20 years of experimental evidence accumulated by the famous 20th century physicist Dayton Miller, which decimated the theorems of both Relativists and Copernicans and confirmed what Sagnac had found. It is unlikely that many in the general population have heard of either Sagnac or Miller, but this is how ‘The Science’ operates.
‘The Science’ is in the business of selecting and appointing its apostles and demagogues and pushing their gospels as truths, whilst ignoring or slandering the heretics and dismissing any of their results which don’t support the narrative. Or, even more creatively, ‘The Science’ will take the disproofs from Sagnac and other experiments and disingenuously declare that they support Relativity! Truth and reality are optional in the world of Relativity and ‘The Science’.
(quite a few posts about the scientism of the Big Bang, just use the search icon)
Sources
A There is the little-known Galilean recantation of the Copernican system, written in a letter to a friend, where he apparently renounces heliocentricity and states there is no evidence for it. This letter is dated the 23rd of March 1641, and sent to a fellow physicist Francesco Rinuccini. It was penned by his secretary Vincenzio Vivani, since by this time Galileo was blind. The contents addressed the discoveries of the Jesuit astronomer Giovanni Pieroni concerning the parallax motion of certain stars. This letter can be found in the Florence National Library archives, rare books department in cabinet 9, folder 5, 33. It is unlikely to be a forgery or a fake.
Galileo dictated:
“The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be called into question, above all, not by Catholics, since we have the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth. The conjectures employed by Copernicus and his followers in maintaining the contrary thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by that most solid argument deriving from the omnipotence of God. He is able to bring about in different ways, indeed, in an infinite number of ways, things that, according to our opinion and observation, appear to happen in one particular way. We should not seek to shorten the hand of God and boldly insist on something beyond the limits of our competence…. D’Arcetri, March 29, 1641. I am writing the enclosed letter to Rev. Fr. Fulgenzio, from whom I have heard no news lately. I entrust it to Your Excellency to kindly make sure he receives it.”
This recantation is never to be found in any books on the subject, nor in any school system.
Footnotes
1-On rationalising why the Sagnac experiment actually ‘confirms Relativity’
W. Schleich and M. O. Skully, “Course 10: General Relativity and Modern Optics,” New Trends in Atomic Physics, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam-New York, 1982;
G. Rizzi and A. Tartaglia, “Speed of Light on Rotating Platforms,” Foundational Physics, 28:1663, 1998
2-Example of works which are critical of STR post Sagnac include:
John Chappell, “Georges Sagnac and the Discovery of the Ether,” Arch. Internat. d’Histoire des Sciences, 18:175-190, 1965;
R. Anderson, et al “Sagnac effect: A century of Earth-rotated interferometers,” American Journal of Physics, 62(11), November 1994
F. Selleri, Foundations of Physics, 26, 641, 1996; Foundations of Physics Letters 10, 73, 1997;
J. Croca, Nuovo Cimento B, 114, 447, 1999;
F. Goy, Foundations of Physics Letters 10, 17, 1997;
J. P. Vigier, Physical Letters A, 234, 75, 1997;
P. K. Anastasowski et al., Foundations of Physics Letters, 12, 579, 1999).
3-Examples of works confirming the Sagnac effect:
Laser Applications, ed. Monte Ross, written by F. Aronowitz, New York, Academic Press, 1971, vol. 1, pp. 133-200;
E. J. Post, Review of Modern Physics, 39, 2, 475, 1967;
W. W. Chow et al., Review of Modern Physics, 57, 61, 1985;
V. Vali and R. W. Shorthill, Applied Optics, 15, 1099, 1976;
G. E. Stedman, Rep. Prog. Phys. 60, 615, 1997.
The Sagnac effect has been measured not just with light waves, but also with matter waves using Copper pairing (J. E. Zimmermann and J. E. Mercerau, Physical Review Letters, 14, 887, 1965); with neutrons (D. K. Attwood, et al., Physical Review Letters, 52, 1673, 1984; S. A. Werner et al., Physical Review Letters, 42, 1103, 1979); and Ca40 atom beams (F. Riehle et al., Physical Review Letters, 67, 177, 1991); and with electrons (F. Hasselbach and M. Nicklaus, Physical Review A, 48, 143, 1993).
4-Other experiments proving the Sagnac effect include:
Anderson et al., American Journal of Physics, 62, 11:975, 1994
E. Post, “Sagnac Effect,” Review of Modern Physics 39, 2:475, 1967 showing the Sagnac effect in ring interferometers;
Hasselbach and Nicklaus, Physical Review A, 48, 1:143, 1993 showing the Sagnac effect using electrons.
Some related sources:
Sir Oliver Lodge Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 189, 149, 1897
R. Anderson, et al., American Journal of Physics, 62, 975, 1994
Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 1984
Martin Gardner, The Relativity Explosion, 1976
“Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary?,” Proceedings of the NPA, Long Beach, California, 2010
