Not only philosophers had their say in working out answers to the questions to this world but physicists as well. Although physics as a pure science of measuring is not entitled to such answers at all and although these answers should not be expected of it, the theories of the “queen of sciences“ had always strong philosophical aspects as well; because the basics of physics itself have been of a metaphysical nature down the line and have remained unapproachable to logical attempts of explanations. As a starting point physics has taken axioms and postulates, like “gravitation“, “nuclear force“, “interaction “, “positive and negative charge“, etc.. Many concepts of this kind have been given up, like for example the “material fluids of electricity“, because they soon proved to be useless.

   At the turn of the century there was particular confusion among the physicists. Apparently radioactivity destroyed the principle of the conservation of energy, and light was for the first time suspected to be a wave which had to be carried by a medium. But nobody really wanted to believe in that – since one had already made bad experiences with the material fluids.

   For the first time the velocity of light was measured by means of various methods. It proved to be incredibly high: about 300 000 kilometres per second were covered by this something - but what was actually moving? 

   Since the views of the physicists were strongly influenced by mechanics, soon the opinion developed that there had to be particles involved, particles of light to be exact; Newton still called them corpuscles, and later Einstein himself invented the photon, nothing else but a particle of light as well.

   In the previous chapters, we just consequently and absolutely abolished the model of light as a substantial particle. Of course, other physicists have already done that before. Many theories deal with the ether, and bizarre ideas were constructed about the matter, like knots, tangles, nets, and fields. But none of them answered the question why the ether should “condense” or “tangle” or “harden” in order to carry light and to create matter.

   With T.A.O. we brought something similar to the ether back to life, but we lent an absolute function to the T.A.O. matrix which the ether did not yet have.1 Because of that we could find the simple explanation that the world works “because it exists “... And its functioning principle proved to be immensely simple.

   But the significance of our way of looking at things still goes beyond these possibilities. It brings us in contact with the haute école of physics, with theories that make many a person shudder with awe because these theories seem to exceed the horizon of their intellectual faculties... We are talking about Albert Einstein’s Theories of Relativity (ToR). 

   For laymen and private scholars likewise as for many scientists or creators of theories it has become a popular sport to “refute” the ToR. Einstein’s theses seem to be an extreme provocation for the common sense; in countless publications it is tried to reproach the genius for an error in his reasoning or a mistake in his calculations2 or to shake his postulates. But Einstein’s theories can neither be refuted nor proved. Up to now they have not been refuted, though – neither have they been proved (even if either has been claimed by opponents and supporters again and again). Neither does it make any sense to search for “mistakes in his calculation” or errors in reasoning in the theories because everything was correctly derived and deduced with mathematical logic – as it is customary in physics. The suitability of a theory – but on no account the degree of its accuracy – results only from the confirmation of its predictions. And we could ask the same question for all theories: does it really correspond to the realities of our nature? This question is particularly burning on our tongue with regard to the ToR. Einstein himself is reported to have said: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they don’t refer to reality.”
In the chapters “Inertia“ and “Gravity“ we already obtained some results which reminded us strongly of some statements of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR). We will therefore continue our thoughts in the sense of our repulsion principles in order to examine if the similarities with the GTR possibly go a little further.

   We should now remember figure 46 which showed us how the pressure shadow between Earth and moon deformed the two celestial bodies and how the tides are created by that. This deformation is produced both by the pressure shadow, as is also demonstrated in figure 44 with the two H-atoms, and by the “curving force“ (figure 15), hence by the geometry of the repulsions to each other (after all, pressure shadow and curving force of the Earth manage to deform the originally globular moon by about 1 kilometre – and that at a distance of about 400 000 km).

   As we already discovered when examining Kepler’s laws and Newton’s gravitational formula, the “space” is determined by what is happening in it. When we define it on the basis of the geometric arrangements of the effects which are revealed in it then the space is “curved“ – at least it gives this impression. Although the empty space is free of properties, in the presence of matter curving forces still occur which – as shown in figure 15 - distort a ruler and bend or stretch it around the spherical “mass field“- and we could postulate something like a “curvature“ of the space. More than ever if we didn’t know anything about the forces effective in the space.

   Next we discovered that inertia has to do with the arrangement of the internal oscillations of a body and with the resistance upon deformation which atoms put up against a change in their impulse directions or rather with the fact that the influence of a force as well as the transmission of a force (or reaction to a force) can maximally be done at the velocity of light – on that occasion it also became apparent that the acceleration of a body reduces its length in the direction of movement because of the lack of instantaneous influence of a force – which also means a deformation - similar to that which took place because of the pressure shadow. And we should not forget that there are neither inert nor heavy masses in the repulsion principle but only the inertia as such.
   The extent of the linear deformation depends on the magnitude of the acceleration. The deformation by the curving force, on the other hand, depends on the radii of the bodies involved and of course on the distance to each other, a fact we have also realised already. The deformation by the pressure shadow is the direct consequence of the geometry of the fields!

   The spatially oriented directions of the force and the curving forces lend special properties to the space, which is never empty but filled with T.A.O. and the impulse fields acting therein. The matrix of T.A.O. has no share in these properties as such – it is only the carrier medium of the impulses and impulse fields which are moving through it. These movements are “controlled” by the relations of the forces or the impulse densities (“energy contents“) of the fields – we already saw with the planetary movements how the fields of two celestial bodies influence each other and play - so to speak - ball with themselves and the universal pressure.

   We already discussed the concepts space, energy, and impulse in fullest detail. From our simple example of the fan blade we know already that space and energy have a certain connection to each other and that a relation must have developed between them which is fundamental for the manifestation of our reality. The third factor of this universal relationship is time. In these relationships, it defines the velocities and hence the density of events as well as the polarisations or encounters of resistance of the impulses, it determines the frequencies, the vibrations or fluctuations – all these phenomena are events within a certain time, or rather: within the same intervals or separated by them. Maybe we should say interval instead of time, that would be more correct.

   An inevitable problem is that we cannot perceive time with our sensory equipment, as we can for example perceive the expansion of the space or the energy of light – but time can only be measured in comparison to other physical processes, movement of pointers, running of sand, oscillation of atoms, etc. This is absolutely not so easy because real clocks measure everything but the “time”.

   Sun dials only show an angle to the sun. Pendulum clocks and hourglasses measure accelerations. Quartz-crystal clocks change their oscillational frequency when an acceleration deforms the quartz-crystals (Hook’s law). With quantum-mechanical systems, the energy level driving the clock changes when the Hamiltonian operator, which causes the acceleration, is changed. When for example atoms are deflected in magnetic fields, the magnetic fields are detuning the transition frequencies. Even atomic clocks are subject to the physical conditions of the space, and naturally they don’t measure time but velocities, movements, or frequencies.

   And since this is the case, clocks – in fact all of them without any exception – are subject to the influences of the fields. Their operation is influenced by the density of impulses, by polarisations, and above all by geometries – namely by distortions, extensions, or curvatures! It is not an easy life for a “clock” in this scenario which we just created with pressure and shadow and curving force.

   We will now take a closer look at the existence of a clock within our multifariously curved and shadowed spaces. For that purpose we design a “clock of light”, i.e. a box in which we simply reflect a beam of light back and forth between top and bottom at an increment rate of one second; a good comparison when we think of the tiny spaces in which spherical fields oscillate or electron waves pulsate back and forth. And at that time we had of course already discovered that acceleration changes these spaces and that the atoms have to adapt to these altercations which – since it is not possible in an instant - creates inertia. But it also creates something else, as we will see in a moment: it changes the operation of clocks...


Fig. 131

    When we are moving our boxed clock of light we see at once that the distances of the light are getting longer ... but that also extends the increment rate of a second (figure 131 – on the right). Our clock is suddenly operating slower. And since we already realised that this has to apply to all physical or atomic processes because of the internal causes for inertia, we can actually say in general: moved clocks go slower! We could also say: they “age“ more slowly because the time seems to go by more slowly. 

    Of course, such a distinct kind of motion is not necessary to make clocks go slow. Since every kind of motion makes clocks go slower, this applies both to the acceleration of free fall in the field of gravitation and to the curving force which causes the effects of a force as well as an acceleration in the sense of deformation. Hence that means: clocks which are falling or clocks which are being deformed are also going slower. That is to say if our box is deformed to an egg shape on the vertical plane, the distance which the light has to cover becomes measurably longer as well. Hourglasses actually stop when they are falling down, what happens to pendulum clocks is easy to imagine – but the mentioned slowing-down factors affect all clocks. And of course not only clocks but all physical processes. 

    When these factors are weaker, i.e. when there is less acceleration or deformation (curving force), clocks (or physical processes) go faster. And what we are concluding now has actually been verified by measurement: clocks on the surface of the Earth go slower than clocks on mountain tops because the curving force and thus the deformation are lower on the mountain than on the ground. And even the acceleration of free fall (the ratio of universal pressure to Earth pressure) is lower. We could also say: the clock on the mountain top “ages” faster. 3

     Insiders have long since realised where our considerations are taking us. Already, the General Theory of Relativity is shining through all cracks. But before we jump right into the middle of things let’s observe our clock of light for a little while longer. From observing the movements in the cosmos we know that gravitation can economise energy very well and obviously consumes almost none. In fact this is not quite true but the movements within gravitational fields seem to relate to the motto: saving energy at every cost, even if it takes longer. Of course, there is no intention behind it but the effect results because the deformation or acceleration inevitably gets into conflict with inertia and because the energy consumption agrees with the magnitude of inertia. Thus as little inertia as possible, because it saves energy and optimises for instance the movement of a planet around the sun to the force-free orbit, to the apparently eternal revolution.

   On the ground our clock “ages” slower – and faster on the mountain top. But then it consumes less energy on the ground than on the mountain where its frequency is higher. Well, we already demanded: as little deformation as possible, as little energy consumption as possible, and everything as slow as possible because the oscillations of the atoms adapt to the spatial modifications all the easier...

    On the surface of the Earth this does not work in such an ideal manner. Here the deformation is strongest, the acceleration of free fall is high. The forces of inertia require a high consumption of energy. In fact the clock “ages” slower but at a high cost in energy. That makes the mountain top more tempting. The curvature is weaker, and the acceleration of free fall and the inertia are lower as well... Besides, the clock “ages“ very fast – but it still does not have an easy life despite all that because the energy consumption is not that small, neither. In addition there is the catch: somehow we have to get the clock to the mountain top! And when moving it to that place it is possible - as we found out – that it goes slower. Of course, we have to consider as well how long the clock remains on the mountain before it comes back.

    We could define the desirable ideal condition as follows: the medium distance between the ground and the mountain top including the deterioration in the balance because of transporting it to the altitude. Therefore, we have to move the clock and to such an altitude that it is ticking, i.e. that it is ”aging“, as fast as possible with the lowest possible consumption of energy. We are thus striving for a maximum aging of the clock. If we, let’s say, throw the clock up in such a way that it falls back after 2 seconds, we have to lend it such a speed that it rises exactly to an altitude of 4.90 metres before it falls back.

    In the balance of this mental experiment we see that the clock has aged “maximally” in this case, namely that it has achieved the optimum number of ticks at the slowest possible velocity and with the lowest possible energy consumption. Just the other way round, if we set the clock the task to rise for two seconds and turn back, it would be forced by the curving force and the pressure conditions to carry out exactly that motion which causes maximum ageing: it would rise to 4.90 metres4 and turn back there.

    And for the same reasons a planet finds the ideal orbit around the sun, namely according to the principle of maximum ageing. Because this is the only way that it can - teleologically speaking - sufficiently defy the grip of the curved spaced on its “mass”. The planet will thus not choose the direct way over the mountain top – but it will not fly around it either – the resulting way of optimum energy application will be a compromise – for example as shown in figure 131a. Of course, a planet does not “find” anything and it does not “choose” anything either but it is forced to take the easy way which will “deform” it the least – and that is the way between the two pressure forces or the two fields – that of the sun and that of the universe. And for reasons of deformation, an optimum velocity will result between these fields and the planet’s own inertia, that is to say one that is as slow as possible – because a higher velocity would already cause a greater deformation again. We could say the planet is idle or lazy, and we could postulate the “principle of cosmic laziness “ 5 because the planet presents the way which is easiest for it... 


    When we think of a clock instead of a planet, it will show us the way of maximum ageing because it evades the centre of the temporal mountain and denies the temporal valley at the edge – we could draw two different conclusions from that: either the clock changes its operation (which is the case) or the mass in the centre dilates time somehow – which would certainly be a bold assumption. When we now think of a metre rule instead of the clock which, as we know, contracts because of the inertia, we would measure a circuit around the centre with this metre rule. This circuit would be a bit bigger than the diameter would make us expect. If we did not know about the contraction of the metre rule, we could establish that obviously the space around the centre must have “expanded” – which is not correct in truth. But if we took the expansion of time and space as a starting point, we could soon find out that both effects could not exist independent of each other (E=space/time²!), that time and space would always expand together (or curve or whatever) – and it would soon occur to us to use the simplified standard concept “space-time“. In this way we could deduce the motion of the planets from one single basic assumption, namely from the expansion of space-time - which would be just as adroit as it would be misleading. Because we certainly know that the clock is really and truly going wrong and the metre rule is really and truly contracted. This thwarts the adroit standardisation and makes retardation or acceleration of clocks, changes in scales, and motions of bodies, etc. exist next to each other without any connection. And that in a space which - from a universal point of view - remains Euclidian but in which mass fields let their oscillations loose on each other in a spherical (or “curved“) manner.

    Well, in fact we have never lost track of the fundamentals of the repulsion principle and still we did not describe anything else but the scenario of the General Theory of Relativity. From that we selected the concepts “interval“, “cosmic laziness“, and “maximum ageing“ and were able to integrate them into our ideas without any problems. Obviously Einstein demonstrated something very real with his GTR to that kind as if he had not noticed the players in a ball game and attributed the puzzling movements of the ball to the mysterious properties of space and time. In doing so he simplified these phenomena to space-time. We did not go so far because we discovered that there are really shortened metre rules and clocks which go wrong – and that this cannot have anything to do with either the properties of space nor with those of time. (By the way, it does not matter if one chooses the one or the other variant, both opinions explain the phenomena of gravitation without contradiction. In addition, in the GTR it is sometimes appropriate to consult both opinions when making calculations.)

    For us, the players of the ball game, that is to say the extensive impulse fields of the apparent masses, are the true explanation for the movements of the ball. That Einstein could capture these movements in his equations without knowing the causal background is all the more an ingenious achievement considering that he based this theory on absolutely wrong fundamental assumptions. It is worthwhile to look at it from Einstein’s perspective:

    The General Theory of Relativity requires a completely new comprehension of space and time. When the physical space has been Euclidian until then (in Newton’s mechanics) or at least flat (in the SToR), (almost) arbitrarily curved spaces are admitted in the GTR. In order to put this particular suitability into effect Einstein established a series of postulates. From the SToR he took the space-time concept as four-dimensional differentiable “manifold” and with that he generalised the Euclidian space. This space-time is curved by the presence of energy (e. g. in form of matter). This means that its internal geometry is changed – whatever this means. In any case all physical processes are influenced by this curvature.

    Main foundation for Einstein’s considerations was actually the postulate of equivalence of inert and heavy masses; this principle of equivalence is therefore an important supporting pillar of the GTR. Einstein discovered that acceleration and gravitation are undistinguishable in certain situations.


    In an elevator accelerating upward (a), the same gravitational effects should occur as in a gravitational field (b). The passenger is allegedly not able to distinguish if the floor of the elevator approaches the “falling” object or if the object is attracted to the floor by a gravitational field. A beam of light (c) crossing the upward moving elevator describes a curve towards the floor – because of the equivalence principle the same is to be expected in the gravitational field (d).
    Interestingly enough, these discoveries of Einstein are downright wrong. The passenger of the elevator is actually very well able to distinguish if he is in a gravitational field or not. For this purpose he only has to drop two objects to the ground (figure 131 c):


    In the gravitational field of the Earth, the two objects would not fall down parallel but radially in direction to the centre of the Earth. Unlike the accelerating elevator, leads in the gravitational field would not hang down parallel. When one took notice of this contradiction, one got resourceful with the “excuse“ that the elevator would have to be just small enough to make the leads appear to be parallel – for an exact science this is a rather sloppy argumentation.

    There is no excuse for the fact that an accelerated, electrically charged sphere radiates, i.e. emits electromagnetic waves, whereas a similar sphere under the influence of a gravity field does not radiate. The equivalence principle thus applies to linear accelerations only in a restricted manner, with rotations (turns) Einstein’s arguments fail completely, they are a guess at random – and hit the bull’s eye because there cannot be a difference between inert and heavy mass at all since only the inertia exists.

    Einstein’s inappropriate conclusions prove that his GTR is a theory of gravitation fabricated through and through to lead to a certain objective. It would be a fruitful victim for Ockham’s razor6 for its many postulates alone. Because the calculation method introduced by Einstein, the differential geometry, contains a couple of unproven assumptions.
    To start with, the metric tensor of space-time is not determined in the GTR, as it is in the SToR, but depends on the content of matter and energy of the space. This content is described by the energy-momentum tensor. The metric tensor is then determined by Einstein’s field equations. Multiplication of the energy-momentum tensor with 8p produces the Einstein tensor, again a postulate of the first water. The next unfounded assumption is the hypothesis of the geodesic, namely the determination that pointed objects have to move on geodesic lines through space-time. In doing so massive objects move on time-like, objects without mass on light-like geodesic lines. A geodesic line is a locally straight curve, exactly the only generalisation of the straight line in curved spaces that makes sense geometrically. It is that path of motion on which no force acts upon moving bodies. Einstein, however, only transferred Newton’s definition to the curved space – why (in both cases) no force is acting upon the body, he explained just a little as Newton. It results only from the resistance of deformation in our way of looking at things.
Despite their simple form, Einstein’s field equations are a complicated system of non-linear, linked differential equations. Hence, their exact solution is only possible in very few special cases with strongly idealised assumptions. A generally analytical solution is practically impossible anyway. Since the GTR is, however, a theory of geometry, the solutions of the field equations for certain special cases can often only be obtained by geometric considerations.
    From the few solutions, one managed to gain some at least very entertaining “insights“ about the structure of space and time. Some of the better known solutions are the “Schwarzschild singularities“, later named “black holes “ by Wheeler and discovered by Karl Schwarzschild (1873–1916) already a few months after the publication of the GTR (today, one rather uses the Kerr metric with regard to the black holes). Based on an examination of stars in a globular cluster carried out in 1939 Einstein himself came to the conclusion:

    “The essential result of this examination is a distinct comprehension of the fact why the Schwarzschild singularities do not exist in physical reality!“ 

    The idea of the black holes was therefore not supported by Einstein himself. Neither have any ever been found ever. Yet everybody believes that they really exist. But he who really wants to know can of course travel into space for a couple of light years to check them out... 7

    Figure 131d shows the central area of the Andromeda galaxy (M31) in the visible light, photographed by the Hubble space telescope. The astronomers claim to have discerned a central black hole here with a mass of about 30 million solar masses which is orbited by stars.


    In any case, the GTR is not a satisfactory explanation of gravitation but only a complicated method of calculation in which it is even impossible to speak of a strict, mathematical derivation at all because of the many arbitrary assumptions. Still, in an astonishing way it reflects a reality which remained hidden to Einstein. When the attractive force of two bodies is calculated by means of the GTR, the result is: no attraction! And that is exactly as it is!

    Where is the decisive influence of the velocity of light on gravitation and inertia, which we discovered in the chapters “Inertia“ and “Gravity“? We find it in the constant of integration rs. It is a measure for the mass and has the dimension of a longitude. This constant is therefore also called gravitational mass or gravitational radius or rather gravitational Schwarzschild radius of the central body. It results from Newton’s constant of gravitation g, the velocity of light in vacuum c and Newton’s mass m of the central body with the relation:

    This constant and many more which contain the second power of the velocity of light as well as the velocity of light itself are indispensable for the solution of Einstein’s field equations. But that should not surprise us particularly.

    Many authors assigned a variety of “errors” to the GTR. The spectrum ranges from violation of the laws of energy conservation, the use of mathematically unfounded constants (i= root of –1), violation of causality, use of pseudotensors, the lack of equations for energy up to the fact that the field equations were so general and complex that even writing errors would lead to solutions. Everybody is entitled to form his own opinion about that. Nowadays it is no problem to track down all these authors via the internet...

    Einstein once classified his GTR in this way:

    “The GTR has nothing to do with reality...!“

    But it has. It describes a gravitational cause “from the inside”, so to speak, which lies on the “outside” (just as Mach8 suspected). Even if it reflects reality only geometrically so to speak, it is the best of all the gravitation theories offered so far even if it allows for incredible solutions, like black holes or the initial singularity of the Big Bang and cosmologic constructions like for instance the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe. By the way, we would also have to insert the differential geometry of the GTR for the mathematical description of the repulsion principle.

    Neither the calculation of the perihelion advance of Mercury nor the deflection of light rays in the gravitational field of the sun are confirmations of the GTR. The ellipses of the planetary orbits revolve around the sun like a rosette, the effect is the most distinctive with Mercury and in the main goes back to the influence of the other planets, to the shape of the sun, which deviates from spherical, and to the solar oscillations (quadrupole moments). In 1966, Robert Dicke and H. Mark Goldenberg discovered the deviations of the sun from the ideal sphere and generated a discussion about Einstein’s prediction which has been going on until today. In addition, Rudolf Nedved is said to have demonstrated that the mystery of the perihelion advance vanishes into thin air if the calculations are not made heliocentrically but barycentrically (relative to the centre of mass of the solar system). Moreover, the phenomena of curving time and space in the sphere of our solar system are so minute that one has to calculate with many approximations in the GTR – thus there’s no complete denying the suspicion that Einstein prepared his result to achieve the values known at that time.


    With the repulsion principle, the perihelion advance is explained in a similar manner as with the GTR. In doing so, we do not take the expansion of space as a starting point but the simple fact that the metre rule is contracted by inertia. Mercury maintained its impulse of motion by deformation. This does not only substantiate that Mercury is subjected to the field of the sun and to the curving force a little longer but also stands in the way of its own rotation which is therefore very slow. In one Mercury year of 88 Earth days, Mercury rotates exactly three times on its own axis in the same time it takes to revolve around the sun twice. The tidal force of the sun and the impulse of motion of the orbit hold Mercury in this 3:2 rotation.

    The perihelion advance of Mercury is already so low that one has to be really astonished at the achievement of Joseph Leverriers (1811 – 1877) who calculated it. In principle it exists with the other planets but it is substantially lower. The GTR fails completely in calculating these disturbances of the orbit. According to Einstein’s own calculation, Venus and Mars had no perihelion advance – which was wrong, though. But the magnitude of the disturbances were not yet known at that time – a further indication that the GTR is an absolutely purposeful (teleological) theory.

    Even according to Einstein the deflection of the beams of light by the gravitational force of the sun is of course not caused by gravitation but by the expansion of space and time. With the repulsion principle, this effect also goes without saying. The space created by the spherical repulsion forces is logically enough spherical, i.e. curved. All of the electromagnetic propagation processes get caught in this geometry – even the light. Worthless is, however, the “proof” of the deflection of light yielded by Arthur Eddington on the occasion of a solar eclipse in 1919. Aside from the fact that the events surrounding this provision of a proof are suspicious (some authors claim, Eddington had fibbed) and that the lousy photographs produced at that time do not allow an evaluation in favour of the GTR, it could have been a simple diffraction of the light in the vicinity of the sun’s surface, especially since the corona of the sun is not homogenous but is composed of several layers. Besides it is very hot, an exact localisation of a beam of light becomes impossible because of that.


    Figure 131f shows a curved beam of light, as we can produce it on our own by means of two different layers (common table salt and water9). A laser beam sent into the boundary area of the two layers is diffracted by the different refractive indices. Similar processes are also possible in the solar atmosphere.
    The confirmation of the GTR by means of a radar reflection experiment that Irwin Shapiro conducted with the planet Venus seemed to be much better. The time which a radar signal requires for the distance to Venus and back can be transformed in an effective distance by dividing the time by 2 and multiplying it with c. If light was deflected by the gravitational effect, the velocity of the light would have to be influenced by that as well, Shapiro thought and found in Eddington’s text book about the classical General Relativity that the velocity of light could actually change in accordance with the equations of the GTR (which is in contradiction to the SToR). According to the GTR, a radar signal reflected by Venus and travelling by close to the surface of the sun would have to take slightly longer for its journey. After several unsuccessful attempts, Shapiro managed to measure a retardation of the radar signal which corresponded to an apparent prolongation of the distance of about 38 km (over a total distance of about 260 million kilometres!). It had to be attributed to the curvature of space or rather to a reduction of the scale since a retardation of the light was of course out of the question according to the SToR. Shapiro’s experiment with Venus (and similar ones with Mars) is, however, no reason for premature cheering. For what exactly did Shapiro actually prove? He proved that a radar signal which was sent to Venus and was reflected there comes back with a little retardation. The reason for retardation can be picked. One could even prove our repulsion theory with it. One can prove any theory with it which predicts a retardation of the returning radar signal for what reason ever.

    As one can imagine, Shapiro’s experiments and similar ones by other scientists were not so easy. One had to take a bearing on the planets (apart from Venus, Mars and Mercury were also “used“) and in doing so their proper movements and also the perturbations by other planets had to be considered. This required complicated astronomical calculations which had to be very exact. He who suspects that this had been accomplished with the ultra-modern, unfailing GTR is very much mistaken because for that purpose, one only consulted of course good old Newton...

    Many authors claim that the GTR is a further development of the Special Theory of Relativity (SToR) – which is absolutely wrong. Except for adopting the concept of space-time, the GTR has absolutely nothing in common with the SToR. Compared to the GTR, which gives rise to the supposition of a certain possibility for practical use after all (at least corrections in technical applications are appropriate because of wrongly operating clocks, as for example with the Global Positioning System – GPS10) , the SToR is only a nice academic exercise since an accordance with reality is not immanent in its system at all. Besides, we will demonstrate at the end of this chapter that the two theories of relativity are so completely different that they cannot even be derived from each other mathematically and are even mutually exclusive.

    The “refutations “ of the SToR have made a lot of ink flow on this world. The religious war between relativists and followers of a different faith refers mainly to the SToR for the reason that the GTR is apparently too complicated and too uncomprehended for the opponents in the discussion. And common sense has substantially greater problems with the SToR as well. Let’s therefore take a closer look at the SToR and let’s say in advance that we already found two of Einstein’s postulates confirmed in our considerations: the impossibility to exceed the velocity of light in vacuum and the independence of light from its source. (See : "The cause of constant and isotropy spread of light")

    From the properties of T.A.O. we derived an unequivocal definition of light as electromagnetic “apparent wave“- as a temporal sequence of impulses which do not influence each other, at least not when following one another. Since each of these impulses is not “connected “ with its source but becomes and remains independent, the necessary motion of the source does not play a role for the motion of the impulses.That means: the impulse is not aware of the motions of the source. But the motion of the source has its influence on the temporal and spatial sequence of several impulses since the distances between the impulses can be shorter or longer. In any case, every single impulse moves at the velocity characteristic for it, which is also the same for every impulse under the same conditions.

    At Einstein’s time, such a definition was not known. Light appeared to be a succession of corpuscles; and one expected that these corpuscles were to receive the velocity of their source. On the other hand some physicists already had the suspicion that light could be some kind of wave; in this case, however, the question remained unanswered through which medium this wave was moving. Following a tried and tested method, one simply assumed such a medium and called it ”ether“. The ether was considered to be some kind of fixed something, and for the time being the velocity of light was referred to this medium in which the planets and stars were also moving around. When the velocity of light was a constant quantity with regard to the ether, it had to be expected that the velocity of an observer could be added to or subtracted from this quantity.11

Constant velocity of light 300 000 km/s---------->
<---------- velocity of the Earth 30 km/s

    When the Earth was moving towards the light of a star at 30 km/s, the velocity of the star light travelling past should be increased by these 30 km/s whereas it had to be reduced by 30 km/s in the opposite direction - in fact always measured from the Earth, simply for the reason that velocities can be added to or subtracted from one another in general after all.

    The physicist Michelson devised an instrument by means of which - he thought – he would be able to prove the differences in the velocity of light caused by the motion of the Earth. To his astonishment, however, it was revealed that obviously the light of the stars always passed the Earth by at 300 000 km/s, no matter if the Earth was moving towards the light or was flying along in the same direction.

    It is actually not relevant for the SToR if Einstein knew Michelson’s experiment or if he didn’t because the origin of the SToR lies in electrodynamics as we will demonstrate. But since the general public believes Michelson’s experiment had causally to do with the SToR, we will begin our considerations with regard to the results of this experiment and demonstrate that this experiment was unsuitable for any kind of interpretation and that it could neither confirm nor refute the SToR. 

    If it is impossible according to this experiment to add the velocity of light to or subtract it from other velocities, the light has evidently the absolutely strange property to be independent of both the source and the observer. In the consequence this leads to strange paradoxes, as for example in the following case: a source of light is travelling in a railway wagon, it stands exactly in the middle, and a fellow passenger is asked if the light reaches both the front wall and the rear wall of the wagon at the same time. According to the result of Michelson’s experiment, the observer will have no doubt of that because he knows that the motion of the wagon has no influence on the light. Thus he will say: “The light of the lamp reaches the front and the rear wall of the wagon at the same time because it doesn’t matter to me if the wagon is moving or not. Probably I don’t even know if it is!“

    A possible observer on the outside who is able to look into the wagon, however, made exactly the same experience with the light. He, too, sees the light pouring from the lamp at the same time; but he also sees that the wagon is moving and that its front wall is running away from the light whereas the rear wall is coming towards the light. Therefore he will have to say that the light cannot reach the front and the rear wall at the same time.

    Both observers have to stick to Einstein’s postulate and with that they are getting into blatant conflict with each other. Einstein thought the fiasco could only be solved by assuming that the conditions for measuring the length of the wagon had changed because of its motion and therefore the wagon had to be of different length for the two observers. That means translating the dimensions of the wagon from the moving system to the system of the outside observer results in a foreshortening which makes it possible for the outside observer to get to the same temporal result as the passenger in the train. For that reason, Einstein concluded that moving bodies foreshortened in the direction of movement...
    Of course that is not easy to comprehend. But Michelson’s experiment seemed to confirm exactly this assumption. The American physicist was probably preceding from following consideration (figure 132). 


    Of two swimmers which are equally good, one is to swim across the river and back and the other is to swim a similarly long distance upstream and back downstream.  The first one has to win, in fact by the time difference of

in case both are swimming at a velocity c and the river is flowing at v. Let’s make this more clear by using assumed figures: swimmer’s velocity 20 m/s; current of the river 10 m/s; distance 100 m. Swimmer 1 has to take an angle against the current (dotted line) to actually reach his destination. We calculate his velocity to Galileo's addition theorem with

    Swimmer 2 swims the first 100 m against the current and the river reduces his velocity by 10 m/s. For that reason, he requires for this distance

100:10= 10 Sekunden.

    But on his way back the river adds 10 m/s to his velocity; hence

100:30= 3,33 Sekunden.

    His total time is 13,33 seconds. He has lost!
    When the swimmers are replaced with two beams of light, the water with the ether and the river bank with the Earth, one has apparently a complete analogy to Michelson’s experiment. Measuring the difference in time would have to allow for determining the velocity at which the ether passes the Earth by or at which the Earth moves through the ether. Since the Earth has certainly different velocities at two opposite points of its orbit around the sun (difference 60 km/s), at least in summer or in winter there should be a difference in time at an order of magnitude that can be measured by optical instruments with absolute certainty.  

    For that reason, Michelson designed a cleverly devised instrument (figure 133).


    By means of a half-transparent mirror (P) he divided a beam of light into two beams moving in two mutually perpendicular directions and reflected them back onto themselves just in accordance with the example of the swimmers. A difference in the optical path lengths of the beams would have to show in the telescope into which the two beams of light were falling. An arm length of 25 metres would result in a difference in the optical path lengths of half the wavelength of green light (500 nm) between the two half beams which would have to annihilate each other away by interference because of that. This difference should shift to the other arm when the instrument was turned and would be proved by the shifting of interference fringes.

    The experiment went off negatively. No matter if summer or winter or how Michelson turned his instrument, there was always only a minute shifting in the interference fringes which was far below the calculated value and which Michelson attributed to the influence of the Earth’s magnetic field. The light seemed to be equally fast in any direction. Even an experiment with the light of the stars failed. And that although the Earth is moving through space at the incredible speed of 30 kilometres per second...

    The physicist Lorentz developed a theory which was based on the assumption that the arm in direction of motion was subject to linear contraction, the so-called Lorentz contraction. Lorentz could actually demonstrate that a system of electric charges contracts exactly by the amount in question in the direction of motion. Therefore, only the plausible assumption would have been actually necessary that all matter eventually consists of electric charges in order to explain the negative results of the experiment.

In our considerations about the inertia we discovered that a moving body is really contracting, and Lorentz’s idea was not so bad at all seen from that point of view. In reality, however, this contraction only occurs with acceleration – i.e. for instance on the surface of the Earth - since rotations are always accelerated motions. The SToR, however, refers only to unaccelerated, linear motions. For that reason, we have to look for a different argument. Could it be that Michelson has made a mistake and that the result of his experiment does not have any meaningfulness at all?

Actually, Michelson only wanted to verify the existence of the ether with his light experiment and did not particularly worry about the properties of the light. If regarded as a particle (photon) or as a wave, light was just something which had a velocity just like the Earth. What one has not realised correctly at that time and up to today is the fact that there wasn’t any object flying on the path in question in Michelson’s experiment and that he shouldn’t have expected from the start that the velocity of light could be added or subtracted according to Galileo's addition theorem. 

    When we define the light as a totally independent impulse, this impulse forms an independent system which is even absolute in the ideal case (vacuum). With that falls Einstein’s first principle of relativity, namely that there are no means to measure absolute velocities. Because there are such means! The central point of a sphere of light remains unshakably fixed in space and time; it is really at rest, no matter if its source is moving or not. When it is moving, it continuously creates further spheres whose central points are strung together on the line of movement of the source110 (figure 134).

Fig. 134

    If this was not the case, there wouldn’t be a Doppler effect since it is exactly this stringing together of the spheres, which involves the temporal transposition of impulses. To define it exactly, every singly impulse has its own sphere and its own central point. The wave develops from several impulses which follow each other but are not created in the same place when the source is moving. In this case, the frequency of the impulse alters immediately and the motion of the source is distinctly revealed in this alteration. The spheres of light standing absolutely in space can be taken as reference points for measuring the velocity as has even been done meanwhile with the background radiation of the universe and with that one could measure the movement of our galaxy unequivocally!12 

    Since a moving galaxy “draws” its spheres of light into the universe, we can establish both this motion and the velocity, which is also called escape velocity with regard to the expansion of the universe.

    If we are able to establish the escape velocity of a galaxy because of the Doppler frequency shift (the so-called red shift) why is it impossible for the galaxy itself to establish its velocity by means of its own light? Let’s take a look at the situation in a figure (135):


    A lamp in this galaxy would distinctly shows us the Doppler effect. This would not be possible for an observer on the galaxy because his moving along with the galaxy would annihilate the effect. After all, he would have to put up - let’s assume two - walls (broken lines in the figure), one of them coming towards the enlarged wavelength, the other fleeing from the reduced wavelength. The result would of course be: no discernable Doppler shift on the walls. 

    The compensation of the spherical shift on the walls certainly implies the fact that the velocity of the impulses has to be different in both directions relative to the galaxy. And it is possible for every light-emitting body to derive its motion exactly from this difference.    

    Let’s put it down again: every single impulse sphere which is created in the universe remains fixed to its place of creation. The Earth moves out of this sphere - the light “is therefore left behind“ and on no account does it get the speed of the Earth added to its own like a bullet. This state of “being left behind” corresponds approximately to the expansion in an absolute ether - the idea of a universal sea was therefore not so bad at all. We know what this medium consists of: it consists of the fields of the matter which extend into T.A.O. far beyond the visible.... 

    But why did this possibility escape Michelson’s notice? Because his experiment - and similar ones by other physicists - was unsuitable to reveal the “being left behind” of single spheres of light. For example one had to believe that a light signal which is incident on a mirror at the velocity c-v is reflected at the velocity c+v, which is not exactly an assumption that goes without saying. Since the angles of reflection at the mirrors do not correspond to the laws of reflection due to the fact that the light “is left behind”, the analogy of the swimmers is absolutely misguided. But let’s take a closer look at it again (figure 132):

    The swimmer follows a certain direction which results from his destined direction and from the fact that the flowing river makes corrections to his direction bringing him to the right destination. He swims at a certain angle against the current; according to Galileo's addition theorem when reaching the destination a speed is the result which there actually existed relative to the destination over the distance covered by swimming.

    With the light, things are completely different (figure 133a): the place of creation of the sphere remains fixed while the destination is moving away. When mirror P is adjusted in such a way that it is hit by the reflected beam, the beam is coming from the place where the mirror was (!) when it reflected the light. When the light is directed from mirror P to the mirror, one has to direct the light to that place where this mirror will be (!) when the light reaches it. It is quite necessary that we visualise this again in more detail (figure 136): 


    When sighting at mirror 1, angle a is automatically given once since the image of the mirror needs time to reach P. When angle a is added again, since one has to aim at the future place of the mirror, one has actually used the angle two times (!) for one distance.

    Hence the path of the light is: from where mirror P was to where mirror 1 will be. Whereas the swimmer knows only one imaginary point (either start or finish) and is therefore using angle a only once per distance, the light moves from one imaginary point to the next imaginary point – in doing so the angle is applied twice. All in all four times over the whole distance (to and back),. The complicated theory of Michelson’s experiment, on the other hand, proceeded on the assumption that there was a regular reflection at the mirrors according to the laws of reflection – it was, however, essentially smaller.

    Therefore Michelson’s expectations were wrong to begin with. The difference of the interference fringes actually to be achieved had to be much smaller. Since the occurring Doppler effects also annihilated each other again correctly, there was nothing to gain in this direction, either. Neither was there any exciting shift in the interference fringes to be expected when turning the instrument since the speed of the light had to turn out quite the same for both arms.13
    Michelson only concluded from his experiment that the ether did not exist. But actually his interferometer could not have been able to prove this either. The physicist was well aware of the weakness of his experiment, and in later years he disapproved of Einstein’s conclusions very much.
And this experimental weakness would certainly not have escaped Einstein’s notice. Therefore it has to be assumed that he didn’t care much for Michelson’s experiment when he developed his SToR. Because there was quite a different physical problem.

    As we already discovered in the chapter “Games“, a magnetic field is always produced without any exception around a current-carrying conductor or around a moving charge. And when we contemplate such a charge and don’t move it, it will occur to us that exactly in this moment we are rotating together with the Earth at about 1600 kilometres per hour and that the Earth itself is dashing around the sun at 30 km/s... That means, the motionless charge is anything else than that – a priori it is a moving charge – but oddly enough it does not create a magnetic field now. Only when we move it – relatively to what? – the expected magnetic field develops. That is really quite strange.

    And it is getting even stranger yet: in 1905, Einstein describes the dilemma in his article “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“ (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”) as follows: “It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics - as usually understood at the present time - when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise - assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed - to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.” (Translation by W. Perrett and G.B. Jeffery, 1923, Methuen and Company, Ltd. of London)

    Although modern relativists have long since admitted that the Michelson- Morley experiment is unsuitable as a secured basis for the SToR to be exact, the fact that the motion of the Earth does not have any influence on the phenomena of electrodynamics is a bit more hairy for the opponents of the SToR. In contrast to the laws of Newton’s mechanics, the Maxwell equations14 of electrodynamics do not fulfil Galileo’s principle of relativity, they do not behave invariantly towards the Galilean transformations. Therefore one believed that the Maxwell equations were a feature of a special inertial system (the “ether system“ to be exact), and one hoped to be able to prove it by means of a variety of ether drift experiments. But since all of these experiments were unsuccessful, one finally set about modifying the laws of mechanics (“relativistic mechanics“). It is also possible to describe the correlation like that: When the principle of relativity applies to this effect that all inertial systems moving uniformly against one another have the same rights, then a set of linear transformations which contains, however, a free parameter yet applies between these systems. This parameter has the significance of a velocity which has the same value in all inertial systems. When it is set to “infinite“ one gets to the Galilean transformations, when it is equalled to c, one gets to the Lorentz transformations. It turned out that obviously the Lorentz-invariantly formulated laws of nature are more suitable. 

    But we know (on the basis of the repulsion principle developed in this book) that the moving charge of which we have talked previously, is already generating an electric field around it when still in a motionless state. This electric field lasts beyond the range of perception as “continuation“ of the matter field, is polarised and moves along with the charge (the centre of the field) (fig. 21a). This field is continuously regenerated by impulses. When the causing charge is motionless relative to the motion of the Earth, it is impossible to establish the motion of the Earth neither by means of the charge nor by means of a succession of spheres of light which pulsate away from a stationary lamp because Doppler effects always annihilate each other through the measuring process (fig. 135). If the central points of the spheres are fixed absolutely (light) or fixed to the Earth (E-field) in this case doesn’t make a big difference when one tries to measure the different properties in drift experiments. It’s funny that the deformations of the electric charges occurring absolutely because of the high velocities are explained with the SToR although it is just a “normal” phenomenon. 15

    In order to achieve a magnetic field we therefore have to move the charge relative to its electric field. As described in the chapter “Games“, in doing so we “blur” the polarisation into a different direction, and these are exactly the lines of force of the magnetic field. And since we know that every material phenomenon is of an electromagnetic nature, we could not find any reason for having to integrate the electrodynamics of moving bodies into the Galileo-Newton principle of relativity by force by means of a theory which relativises time and space because it has never stood outside of it. And of course it would be a mistake to apply the Maxwell equations absolutely uninhibited to the electromagnetic fields of electrody-namics as well as to the spreading of the spheres of light. Both is in fact an electromagnetic phenomenon but after all so is every grain of sand of this universe, too! 

    The difference between light and other electromagnetic phenomena can be explained like that: when we compare the universe with the ocean, the light is the play of waves on this ocean; material electromagnetic fields, on the other hand, are the play of waves in the swimming-pool of the luxury liner which is crossing the ocean...

    The velocity of light can turn out thoroughly differently relative to the observer. The absolute impossibility to exceed it is given because it depends on the carrier matrix (T.A.O.) and on the fields in the universe with the “vacuum“ - provided that it really exists –just determining the upper limit. We already described this in detail and demonstrated the causes. Relative superluminal velocities are, on the other hand, quite possible as the black night sky around us proves. It has always been odd that Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity only applies to linear motions. Rotations are excluded. It is easy to prove that the circumference of the universe revolves around us at several times the velocity of light when we are turning around unhurriedly only once...

    It is interesting that even intelligent people are infected by a kind of mental handicap when they come in contact with the SToR. Nigel Calder describes the following thought experiment in chapter 15 of his book “Einstein’s Universe“:

    Einstein inferred another curious effect concerning the speed of light. When the speeds of objects approach the speed of light you cannot add them together in the obvious way. Picture two galaxies rushing away from Earth at seventy-five per cent of the speed of light, in opposite directions. Simply adding the speeds would suggest that they are travelling away from each other at 1 1/2 times the speed of light. In that case, you might think the one must be invisible from the other, because light passing between them could never catch up. But it is easy to see that they are still in contact, in principle. For example, one of them could send a message to the other, if need be by way of the Earth. The speeds of the galaxies relative to the Earth do not affect the speed of a signal.

    Sitting on the Earth we could receive the signal from galaxy A that reads: “Warmest greetings on Einstein’s birthday. Please pass on to galaxy B“. So then we send off a message that reads: “Galaxy A sends you greetings on Einstein’s birthday.“ We know that it can eventually get to its destination because we can also see galaxy B. But even if we and the Earth were not there (or were asleep when the message came) you can still imagine galaxy A’s message whizzing past the Earth’s position in space without any intervention on our part, and eventually arriving at galaxy B. So adding the speeds gives the wrong answer: the speed at which A and B are moving apart must to them seem less than the speed of light, otherwise no such message could pass.

    What is the explanation here? We have to figure out what the speed of galaxy B seems to be from the point of view of galaxy A. If that came out at something greater than the speed of life, then the two galaxies would indeed be mutually incommunicado. To find the answer, the relativist divides the simple sum of the speeds by a certain factor, (...) which takes account of the slowing time, as judged by us, in the two galaxies. – End of quote.

    Only for relativists can this example be a challenge to start brooding. Since the relative superluminal speed is forbidden to them, they can only solve the problem by means of tricks in calculating. But although Nigel Calder is not exactly an opponent of Einstein, he should have seen how absurd his mental experiment was – apart from the fact that the SToR would not be applicable in the universe anyway because of the existing gravitational effects, it would not have to be applied either since a signal sent into absolute space by galaxy A is travelling at the speed of light and can therefore catch up with galaxy B which is flying at 75% of the speed of light without any problems! Of course with the corresponding Doppler modification... Besides the Doppler effect offers galaxy B the possibility to determine the relative speed between the two galaxies. Since galaxy B can measure its own absolute speed by means of the background radiation 12, it is also possible to calculate the speed of galaxy A. And with that we can finally consider the SToR to be an aesthetical hobby.

    But since it is so much fun to reduce the SToR to absurdity piquantly enough by means of the GTR, here is something else to think about:
Since the GTR seems to be closer to reality and since we found it even confirmed in a certain way (because at least the geometry of the gravitational effect is quite correct), we should also verify if the SToR justifies its existence at all in our world governed by the universal pressure or if our world is compatible with “Einstein’s universe“ (GTR) at all. But let’s leave aside the usual subtleties about the inertial systems and establish straight away that the gravitation does not occur in the SToR at all. But why not? Because the incompatibility with reality (or with the GTR) would immediately come to light. In fact for following reason:

    First of all let’s make a note of the point that in the GTR even photons are subject to a red shift due to gravitation because of the equivalence principle: when we send a photon to the ceiling in an elevator which is uniformly accelerated upwards, it will arrive there red shifted because of the Doppler effect. According to the equivalence principle, a frame of reference in the sphere of influence of gravitation cannot to be distinguished locally from a uniformly accelerated frame of reference. For that reason, this red shift must also occur in gravitational fields. In the Special Theory of Relativity, however, such a red shift can never occur. Let’s take a look at following diagram for that purpose (fig. 136):


    We see the emission of two light pulses in the coordinates time (t) and path (x). The curvature of the two lines shows the assumed effect of gravitation on the impulses. The second impulse has to move on a curve which resembles that of the first impulse because the situation is static, i.e. it does not change in the course of time. With that the second curve corresponds exactly to a temporal displacement of the first curve. The temporal difference between two impulses and with that the frequency of the light is thus of the same magnitude with sender and receiver. Hence the existence of a red shift is impossible. Since the red shift has been proved in experiments meanwhile, though, our considerations show that the definition of the temporal distance in the SToR is doubtful in the presence of gravitation which can only be due to the fact that the temporal difference at the receiver would have to be calculated in a way different to that at the sender. With that, however, the geometry of the space would also be different in both places according to the GTR since the measurement of time in space-time corresponds to the measurement of length in common spaces. Thus the flat space of the SToR does not correspond with reality in the presence of gravitational effects. The absence of gravitational effects, however, is just as unthinkable within our universe as the existence of an absolute vacuum... 

    The GTR allegedly comprises the SToR as special case in two respects:
    1. With an empty space the GTR results in the space-time structure of the SToR (Minkowski space). An empty space, though, does only exist in absence of the universe.
    2. In freely falling frames of reference, the laws of the SToR apply locally. A spaceship orbiting around the Earth, for instance, would be such a freely falling frame of reference. According to the equivalence principle, astronauts should not be able to detect the existence of a gravitational field. But they are! For the same reasons which we found in the elevator (figure 131c). Two objects hovering above one another in the spaceship would move away from each other as if guided by a mysterious force since different orbit parameters would apply to each of them. 

    Relativists have many calculating tricks at the ready to preserve their dearly beloved SToR into the world of the GTR. The very smallest inertial systems of all patched together or insignificantly weak gravitational fields and suchlike.16 They like to mark the SToR as excellently supported by experiment and come up with experiments which do often not hold out against a closer analysis, though.17 If one demands proofs, on the other hand, they are the first ones to point out that one can never prove a theory but confirm or refute it at best.
    It is popular to cite the SToR in connection with charged particle accelerators. But the impossibility to exceed the velocity of light applies also for accelerated “particles“ because the “dominos principle“ of the T.A.O. matrix does not permit a faster propagation of the impulses. If we had issued the postulate of the constancy of c on the basis of these insights, we could provide the fact that it is impossible to accelerate electrons up to c as a proof for the T.A.O. matrix - apart from the fact that there can also be other reasons for the behaviour of the electrons are also     possible (the speed-dependent increase of inertia with electrons was already examined by W. Kaufmann in 1901).

    And what about the muons and the much stressed argument of their extended life time because of the high speed? Let’s take a look at it:
In the cosmic radiation, certain “particles” are found as components of the penetrating radiation that arrives on the surface of the Earth - and this is exactly what they are expected not to be. One knows them from laboratory experiments, actually they are “heavy electrons“; their correct name is muons. They are unstable particles and decay with a half-life value of ca. 1.5*10-6 seconds.

    In the year 1941, when B. Rossi and Dr. B. Hall carried out an experiment with these muons, they believed to know the following about these particles:
· Muons are produced in proton-proton collisions at great altitudes (15-30 km).
· After a very short time they decay into one electron (or positron) and into one neutrino and one antineutrino.
· Since they are produced by cosmic radiation, the main component of their motional direction in the atmosphere is pointing downwards. Their velocity reaches almost light speed.

    Based on these assumptions following considerations were made: it is possible to note the impact time of a muon with detectors and observe its decay. This decay of the muon which is retarded and thus coming to rest is recorded. The temporal intervals between impact and decay can be determined statistically with a sufficiently high number of muons; hence it is possible to establish how many of the muons are lost through decay when they travel a certain distance during a certain period of time. When the number of impacting muons is measured on a mountain top and afterwards at sea level, there shouldn’t actually be any muons left at sea level because they don’t exist long enough for such a long distance. 

    The experiment was carried out, and the result revealed that far more muons were left than had to be expected. From that it was concluded that muons lived in a “dilated “ time because of their high velocity, and the experimental evidence of the time dilatation had been provided. But the credibility of this evidence stands or falls by the nature of the observed muons.

    When muons are approximately flying at the velocity of light, half of their initial number decays after about 450 meters because of their half-life value. Of the remaining half, another half decays after another 450 meters, and so on. After a distance of about 2000 metres only 17 to 25 muons are effectively left when 568 muons per hour were detectable in the beginning - as was the case in this experiment. Theoretically we won’t find any more muons after 4500 meters. From a relativistic point of view, however, this distance may be incredibly extended. A difference in altitude of 2000 meters should not make any difference at all. But above all: the mass of the muons would have to increase eminently as defined by the Theory of Relativity, in fact from 207 electron masses to 1467 electron masses - that would be nearly the mass of a nucleon already. This mass corresponds to a high energy which has to be picked up. In the cited experiment iron plates of a certain thickness were used which only admitted muons of a very particular energy content for measuring. This was done in the same way both at 2000 meters and at sea level, in fact with meticulous precision. But already the question arises if such heavy particles really have the same speed over the complete distance they cover or if they are also subject to a continuous acceleration like every falling body. That this is the case seems to suggest itself - but then a completely different family of muons was measured at 2000 metres than at sea level! That means even when acknowledging the StoR, the experiment can be doubted. But the SToR is not responsible for accelerations at all.

    The solution of the problem is probably even more simple. In order to refute the experiment, it is sufficient to prove that muons can come into existence in different ways and at different heights. Well, there really exist several disintegration channels which lead to the muon. All of them can be found in cosmic radiation. Not only muons are created through proton-proton shoves on any account but pions and kaons as well. These two particles also decay into muons but after different times. The (“positive“) pion has a half-life value of 1.8*10-8 seconds; the kaon (it occurs regularly together with muons) lives on average 8.56*10-9 seconds - and in addition there is also a neutral kaon which decays into a positive pion after 4*10-8 seconds. The pion in turn - see above - can decay into muons. All times mentioned are half-life values; we did not list all the other particles which are also produced in these processes of decay because they are of no importance here. We see: in truth the matter is not just as simple as the gentlemen Rossi and Hall imagined it to be. The possibilities to get muons are more numerous than they thought. And for that reason, muons are also a main component of cosmic radiation at sea level.

    The stumbling block of the much stressed “muon evidence“ is therefore called KAON (also named K meson). Well, there is a particular explanation for this kaon which provides us so willingly with muons - in fact also on the surface of the Earth: it is a so-called strange particle. Strange because it would actually have to be stable according to the particle physics’ principles of conservation, and according to the “principle of conserving the strangeness “ it should on no account decay into muons. It happens nevertheless. But with that its half-life value is a most unreliable value. It should also be mentioned that kaons are created wherever and whenever high-energy mesons collide with nucleons.
Why, actually, did the physicists Rossi and Hall not take these peculiar events surrounding the Kaon into consideration? Very simple: they carried out their legendary experiment in 1941. The kaon (K meson), however, was not discovered until 1947 by W. M. Powell.18 

    In a very indirect way, the muon evidence can also be duplicated in the laboratory. The results with regard to this are, however, very disputed. The authors Georg Galecki and Peter Marquardt19 went to a lot of trouble in this respect to pick this and other proofs for the SToR to pieces but of course that can also have been a waste of effort. In the repulsion principle we also discovered that moved clocks or clocks in the gravitational field go slower. And we also realised that atomic oscillation processes are clocks, in a certain way. So when muons distribute their energy over a longer distance due to high velocity because their wavelengths are “extended” and therefore create the impression that they would “live” longer it does not automatically provide evidence for the SToR – it simply proves that clocks in motion are just as unreliable as hot or cold clocks, un-oiled and defective clocks or clocks going sloppy for any other reason. How should we find a standard for the “right” operation of a clock at all? It has nothing to do with time. Time is an operand which can neither be prolonged nor dilated nor curved. 

    If one puts two modern atomic clocks in two airplanes and flies off with them into different directions, both clocks will go wrong but to a different extent, namely depending on the direction of the flight - which does actually not correspond exactly to Einstein's theories. One celebrated the result of such an experiment conducted by J.C. Hafele and R.E. Keating in the year 1971 as confirmation of the Theories of Relativity – but it is only confirmation for the fact that atomic clocks, just like any other material or electromagnetic field, are subject to inertia against the absolute matrix of T.A.O.20 Our observations only differ from the postulates of the ToR with respect to the propagation of light which we consider to be absolute. An indication to that is provided by an effect which is called aberration of the stars and was first described by Bradley in 1725. Link to the criticism at the experiment of Hafele and Keating.

    .When we look at a star through a telescope, we don’t see it in the right place because the light traverses the moved telescope diagonally (figure 137): since we expect the star to be in direct line behind this diagonal, we see it in a wrong place. Because at the moment of its incidence in the telescope, the light becomes nothing else but a beam in the clock of light. The aberration proves that the light is actually left behind while the bottom of the telescope is moving on. By means of the light, the telescope indicates the motion of the Earth and with that it is in contradiction to the SToR. But with this explanation one actually wanted to prove the SToR insofar as that the aberration is independent of the motions of the stars and therefore also independent of the relative motion star / Earth and that the Earth is obviously “immobile” in the sea of ether. We will therefore examine the issue a little closer in the chapter “Remarks“.21


    We see that the Theories of Relativity are hard to confirm or to refute for the reason alone that they predict a series of verifiable facts which can also be explained exactly without ToR when the paradigm is changed. And in fact, it is impossible to really prove the ToR. Einstein himself knew that very well when he said: “No experiment will be able to prove my theory, but one single one can refute it!“ 

    Since electromagnetic fields always have to be spherical (spherical waves) after all according to the Special Theory of Relativity, one should also expect this of electromagnetic effects, for instance of a magnetic field. The magnetic field triggered by a moving charge, however, disappears for the observer who is moving along with the charge. In the same way, the charge itself should be invariant (absolute); but charge density and current density turn out to be variant, i.e. conditional on the motion. Until today one has not found one’s way out of this dilemma.22 For those who still can’t make head or tail of it, here is the simplest examination of the Special Theory of Relativity based on the existence of the DOPPLER effect (figure 138):

    For us, a moving source of light coming towards us shifts the frequency of its light into a higher frequency (blue shift). For an observer moving along with the light, it still has the same colour since he causes an inverse Doppler effect with every way of measuring he might undertake because his measuring instrument is receding a little from every impulse. But exactly that could not happen if the impulse had the same speed relative to the measuring instrument as relative to the stationary observer! It follows conclusively from the running-away-from-the-impulse of the measuring instrument (or the running-towards-the-impulse on the other side) that different impulse velocities occur depending on where they are measured from. When a mirror is used instead of the measuring instrument, it will in fact receive the original frequency but will dilate it because of its motion. When the observer moving along takes a look in this mirror, he is moving against this dilated frequency and transforms it back into the original frequency. It doesn’t help either when he directs a vertical beam out by means of the mirror and observes it. The frequency compensation will also take place in this case.

    If the Special Theory of Relativity applied, the Doppler effect would not be able to occur at all. After all, the increase in frequency of a source of light coming towards us occurs because the first impulse is not so far away from the source of light when the next one is created as it would be with a stationary source of light. This implies conclusively that it has experienced a reduction in speed relative to the source. 

    Michelson’s experiment was repeated again and again with different arm lengths and even with laser light.23 These many repetitions and verifications show how hard it was for the physicists to believe that nature should resort to such bad tricks in order to withhold the absolute state of motion from us. Their mistrust was not quite unjustified.

    Since clocks moving relative to each other are going slower according to the SToR (and also in reality), one could conclude that of twins moving relative to each other the respective other one is ageing more slowly. Responsible for this is the “time dilatation“24 or “time stretching“ derived from the Lorentz transformations. Already in the year 1911, Langevin pointed out a contradiction in this conclusion, that in fact each of the twins sees the other age more slowly since it depends only on the relative motion between the twins according to the SToR and not on who had been accelerated before. So, which of the twins is really younger?

    This contradiction known as “twin paradox“25 has in the meantime been solved by an experiment carried out by Professor Thim at the University of Linz. He could prove by means of a microwave interferometer that the “transversal Doppler shift“ which is also based on the time dilatation does not exist at all although this phenomenon known as “relativistic Doppler effect“ had been assumed as certain up to then. The measuring results were published and presented at conventions in Germany and the USA, the last time in May 2002 at the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference in Anchorage, USA.26 It looks as if the SToR had been refuted unequivocally for the first time (?) by experiment.

     And here is the promised comparison of the two Theories of Relativity:

    The SToR deals only with uniform motions without forces. Every observer has its own space and his own time. Clocks have to be synchronised individually. Space and time depend on velocity. The ether was explicitly dispensed with, the speed of light is constant, and there is no gravitation. The space is always absolutely normal, i.e. flat. The SToR does not explain anything and does not produce anything. It is not applicable in the presence of a universe. The formulas of the GTR are not created in the “borderline case“ of the SToR (observer velocity = 0).

    The GTR deals only with nonuniform motions with forces. Space and time are the same for all observers and all clocks are always synchronised anywhere from the beginning. Space and time remain constant. The ether is explicitly demanded again.1 The velocity of light is variable, namely depending on gravity. In the GTR, everything revolves around gravitation which is determined by the space and its curvature, and the space is always curved. The GTR does not explain anything, does not produce anything, but is applicable as a calculation method in the presence of a universe. The formulas of the SToR are not created in the “borderline case“ of the GTR (flat space, no forces).

    The two theories have nothing to do with each other, they contradict each other in almost all parts, the GTR can therefore never be a generalisation of the SToR. But at least in a geometrical way it describes a physical reality which we hope to have demonstrated distinctly enough with the “Principle of Existence“, the T.A.O. matrix, and the repulsion principle.

    As predicted in the chapter “Mass“ we are now turning our attention to the famous formula E=mc² and with that we will finish our short digression into the world of the Theories of Relativity. We learned enough to comprehend the derivation and significance of this formula. We certainly understood that there is only the inertia (inert mass) and that it has to be attributed to the fact that the transmission of power cannot accelerate a body instantaneously because the impulse fields of the atoms have to pulsate through the matrix of T.A.O. according to the “domino principle“ and that in doing so the motion causes an alteration in the paths (oscillational spaces) - just as in the clock of light shown in figure 131. We could equate the resistance caused by that with the Lorentz force because in the end all matter consists of electromagnetic fields. The deformation (as shortening) of moved bodies which we discovered in the chapter “Inertia“– it also played a significant role as distortion in our considerations about the GTR – was already contemplated by the physicist Lorentz as a possibility to explain the negative result of Michelson’s experiment. For the extent of this shortening or contraction, Lorentz determined the factor k

in which v is the velocity of the body and c the velocity of light. We could also calculate this factor out of our clock of light which represents the relation of the alteration in distance in dependence on the velocity. For that purpose, the familiar theorem of Pythagoras is already sufficient...

    If we want to know what length a moving body has in a motionless state we have to insert this coefficient of correction k and transform its linear measure to the motionless state. This is the well-known Lorentz transformation. As we have seen this factor results from the simple fact that bodies cannot be accelerated above the velocity of light because the impulse velocity within this body is limited by c. The extent of the retardation of a moved clock can easily be calculated with k as well. This is actually called “time dilatation“ – and, as we know, it is nothing else but a clock ticking “differently”...

    For the relation between acceleration and force, Newton established the equation F=ma or a=F/m, i.e. the acceleration a is proportional to the exerted force F and inversely proportional to the mass m of the body – which means, of course, the inert mass. The bigger the inert mass of the body, the more difficult it is to accelerate it.

    Now let’s imagine a particle on which a uniform force is acting... When it is in a motionless state, its subsequent motion is defined by F=ma. But when it is already in motion, it has the velocity v because of an acceleration (according to Newton) of a= F/m and it is moving faster and faster due to the imposed force. But Newton didn’t know about these oscillational modifications of the atoms similar to the clock of light as a cause of inertia. His equation a= F/m could not be quite correct for that reason. The impulses of the particle react of course slower and slower with increasing acceleration (we could also say their time is stretching more and more), and the magnitude of this internal retardation (and with that the increase of inertia) has the extent of the Lorentz factor so that we have to “correct” Newton’s equation as follows

    One can see from this equation that the velocity of the particle at the speed of light does not increase anymore, even if more force is exerted because a=zero if v=c!

    Also in the chapter “mass“ we came across a formula which expresses the energy content of the moving particle, namely its kinetic energy, with E=1/2mv². This definition also goes back to Newton who postulated that a work W is exerted on a body when a force F is acting on the body with the mass m over a distance s. He attributed the value W=Fs to this work. When substituting F for F=ma, W=Fs corresponds exactly to 1/2mv². The greater the expenditure of force (Fs), the greater kinE= 1/2mv².

    But again we have to correct Newton’s equation by the Lorentz factor, and instead of F=ma we now write

and the work done now equals 

    with Newton it was only       

    The Lorentz factor has the effect that W becomes infinite if v=c, which makes superluminal speed impossible. But if work lends a greater inertia to a body, the inert mass has to contain energy, exactly E=1/2mv² - and of course this also has to be corrected by the factor k, which results in


so that because of this definition the equation looks like


    That means, even if W=zero, i.e. if neither a force is applied nor a work is done, the particle still has an energy of

E=mc² !

    The “mass“ of a body is thus considered to be a measure for its energy content (just as our simple example with the fan wheel has revealed). This does on no account mean that mass and energy can be transformed into each other just like that. Because apart from the fact that E=mc² is only a fictitious quantity and has rather a symbolic character, a complete transformation of “mass” into “energy“ is only conceivable in the reaction of matter and antimatter. After all, we demonstrated that in truth masses cannot be involved at all when we described the energy by means of the transformation of the field surfaces and the universal pressure which was changed by that.

    Einstein’s paper in which he presented these relations in 1905, was titled “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy Content?“ Though this formula is not included in this three-page treatise, in which he made the proof dependent on the claim to be proved (anyhow a method of evidencing that is usual in the ToR and by means of which the arguments are defined by “measuring regulations”). Because in its correct derivation it stems from Max Planck, and he actually referred to Poincare’s quantity of motion of radiation...

    But that is a completely different story!27




   Albert Einstein is leaving the scene.

1  Einstein himself proposed in a speech – delivered on May 5th, 1920 in the University in Leiden – a structure  similar to the T.A.O. matrix (motionless ether), when he said: “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.“

2 As everybody knows, in the SToR the fundamental magnitude v really reverses its sign in the counter transformation although the Lorentz transformations should be absolutely symmetrical between the primed and the unprimed frame of reference. An absolutely symmetrical inertial process therefore contains asymmetric transformations. This flaw has been ignored by relativists for one hundred years although it questions the whole theory. Students at every university of the  world have complained about this incomprehensibility to  the lecturers.  “How is it possible that the inverse Lorentz transformation reverses the sign of the fundamental magnitude despite the absolute symmetry of the inertial process?“

3 The frequency of a clock of any model is, ... as has been proved theoretically and practically, linearly depending on the gravitational potential. An atomic clock which has a certain frequency at sea level and which is transported to a place at a higher level, for example to the  US Bureau of Standards in Boulder (Col.) at 1650 metres above sea, is going faster there by a factor of + 1.8 · 10-13. This is not an illusion because when the clock is taken back to sea level, one can read on it how much time it has gained on the higher level. (Quotation from Brockhaus multimedial 2001). The question is probably not rarely asked: what happens to the clock when it enters a different  gravitational potential and changes its frequency accordingly. The clock does not go faster on a mountain simply because the time is going  faster. It goes faster there because explicitly those structural components alter which determine the frequency. This observation describes actually only an identity: the modification of the frequency determining components is identical with the statement that the clock changes its frequency. Foucault pendulums and clock pendulums turn out to be the key for understanding the cosmological conclusions from Mach's principle.( Prof. Dr. Klaus Strobach, Stuttgart)

4 This altitude of 4.90 m stems from calculations by John Archibald Wheeler (A Journey into Gravity and Space-time, p. 176). Other authors, like for instance Thomas Fischbacher, University of Munich (1.20 m) achieved completely different values which deviate from each other. This shows that the mathematics of the GTR is not a simple matter.

5 See: “ABC of the Theory of Relativity“ by Bertrand Russell, page 95 of German edition, published by Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt a. M., 1989.

6 William of Ockham (around 1285 to ca. 1349), English  philosopher born in Ockham (Surrey), theological writer and Franciscan friar. The rule of economy of formal logic ascribed to William of Ockham according to which simple hypothesis are to be preferred to complicated ones, is called Ockham’s razor.

7 The concept of Black  Holes is not new and did on no account arise but with Einstein’s theory: already in 1799, Pierre Simon Laplace (1749–1827) discussed the question whether the gravitational force of a body could be so strong that it would prevent light from escaping. Since black holes cannot be proved directly of course, one is looking for indications for the existence of the black hole by means of the radiation  emitted by bodies falling into the black hole. Thus it is meanwhile considered as “proven“ that black holes occur in the centre of many galaxies.

8 Mach’s principle: in 1883, Ernst Mach (1838-1916) formulated the hypothesis that the forces of inertia were caused by the entirety of matter available in the  universe. In a thought experiment to that effect, the inertia of a body was expected to disappear when all other matter was removed. According to  Newton’s bucket experiment, the parabolic curvature of the surface of a water-filled rotating bucket marks a frame of reference rotating against the  absolute space. But since there is no absolute space according to Mach, the centrifugal force as a cause of the curvature is generated on the basis of the rotation relative to the fixed stars. According to Mach, the reversed situation, namely the rotation of the fixed stars around the stationary bucket cannot be distinguished from Newton’s bucket experiment  neither by thought nor by experiment. Therefore the water surface has to be curved in this as well. Mach’s principle was one of the starting points for developing the GTR.

9 Curved beam of light (mirage): a cuvette is filled with 4 cm of water and placed on the optical bench. Then the table salt solution is filled in by means of the tube at the bottom of the cuvette so that two different layers are created in the cuvette, water on top and the table salt solution at the bottom. One has to make sure that the layers don’t mix. The laser is mounted on the table in such a way that the beam enters the cuvette only just below the boundary of the layers, pointing slightly inclined upwards. Because of the continuously changing refraction index along this boundary the beam will run in a curved way.

10 In GPS (Global Positioning System), a correction of the relativistic effects (the clocks are going faster because of the altitude of the satellite orbits) is actually made by slightly reducing the frequency of the atomic clocks in the satellites (from 10.23 Mhz to 10.229999995453 Mhz). It cannot be verified if this correction makes sense at least with regard to the GTR (the SToR errors would be too insignificant) since the errors from other causes are substantially more significant and conceal the relativistic ones. The errors can have following extent:
· Atmospheric effects ± 5 metres 
· Variations of the satellite orbits ± 2.5 metres 
· Errors of the satellite clocks ± 2 metres
· Disturbances due to reflection of signals ± 1 metre
· Disturbances due to the troposphere ± 0.5 metres
· Computational and rounding errors ± 1 metre
· Relativistic effects ± 0.13 metres
With a probability of 95 percent a position measured by means of GPS does not deviate more than 100 m in horizontal position and not more than 156 m in altitude from the actual value (Hofmann-Wellenhof & Lichtenegger 1994). The “natural“ errors make the lion’s share of inaccuracy in the balance of errors of the GPS; they are by far greater than those 13 centimetres from the Theories of Relativity so that they scarcely play a role in practice. The correction is an academical industrious piece of work. Franz Embacher (University of Vienna): “Because of this simple solution the GPS technicians don’t have to grapple with the Theory of Relativity.“

11 Actually, this expectation is incomprehensible: Galileo’s or Newton’s principles of relativity imply that it does not depend on the motion or the rest of a body when we conduct  a physical experiment. That means that we cannot distinguish at all between the  Earth at rest or in motion. Thus when we shoot cannon balls into different directions we could not establish the motion  of the  Earth around the sun from their velocities. Why did one actually believe that Newton's principle of relativity could be broken if one took beams of light instead of cannon balls? Michelson proved that there is no ether - and what more? All right, forget the ether. Why should the light reveal the motional state of the Earth when it was already known that no experiment would permit it? Why did one expect that corpuscles of light behaved different to  cannon balls? One only had to accept Newton's principle of relativity and did not require any SToR at all to explain the  result of Michelson’s experiment (and those of other people). We would get exactly the same result with cannon balls - but nobody would come up with the idea that they were moved along with the  “ether”. (Posted to the forum of “Bild der Wisssenschaft”, a German scientific magazine).

12 In the years 1976 to 1977, experimenters of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California  flew in a U2 airplane high above in the Earth’s atmosphere. They found that there were differences in the measured velocity compared to a cosmic frame of reference defined by the 3-K radio energy. There also were distinct results for the motion  of our milky way through the universe. In his book “Einstein’s Universe“ Nigel Calder said to that: “What is false is nothing less than one of Einstein’s fundamental assumptions: that it is impossible for an astronaut moving at a steady  speed to tell whether he who is moving or the outside world is moving. In fact it turns out that he can, and the democracy of Einstein’s theory is  compromised.“

13 Why should the presented swimmer analogy not be admissible for the behaviour of the light? In short it can be said that in case of the swimmers there  is a modification to the speeds whereas in the MICHELSON interferometer a modification of the distances takes place, and we should therefore examine the experiment very thoroughly (Principle of Existence, Page 481).

14 In 1864, James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) submitted his dissertation “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field” to the Royal Society in London. With his equations he provided the theory by means of which all electromagnetic effects have been explained until today. The theory, however, had a crucial disadvantage: it was no longer Galileo invariant. Its equations resulted, for instance, in the velocity of light being of the same value in all frames of reference. This was a contradiction to Galileo’s opinion according to which the light, which is emitted, for example, at c by a source of light moving away from the observer at 0.3c, should arrive at the observer at only 0.7c. But this seemed to be contradictory to the experimental results. Maxwell’s theory was no longer Galileo invariant but Lorentz invariant. That means that it is invariant at  a peculiar transformation, the so-called  Lorentz transformation. The peculiarity of this transformation is that moving bodies appear to be shortened and that moving clocks go slower.

15  The conventional expert opinion that, for instance, the electric charge of the proton is always distributed in a spherical structure was refuted by the result of a study concerning interactions of  a high-energy electron ray with  hydrogen atoms. The examination carried out under the direction of Charles Perdrisat of the Jefferson Laboratory in the US County Virginia provoked intensive disputes in the expert world. Together with about eighty research colleagues Perdrisat conducted  his examinations on  an electron accelerator of the Jefferson Laboratory. In their experiment the scientists fired an electron ray into a vessel which was filled with extremely cold hydrogen. When the electrons hit the hydrogen atoms and accelerated them, they were deflected into an unexpected direction through the interaction with their protons. The group of researchers interpreted the results of their experiment in that way that the  positive electric charge of the proton did not adopt a spherical form but rather that of an egg. As was to be expected, other researchers are not convinced of this interpretation, though. They rather suspect that the results of the experiment could be explained with the relativistic interactions between the high-energy electrons with the protons.

16 According to the SToR, a couple of paradoxes and inconsistencies in argumentation result, like for example: the faster a car drives, the slower its motor would have to run because of the time dilatation, or tanks could cross a crack in the earth for one observer but not for the other observer, balls would fit through the gaps of a fence passing by or they wouldn’t..., just think of the twin paradox or the Ehrenfest dog-flea paradox etc... Here is another one: a submarine travelling at near-light speed appears shorter to an observer on land. For that reason, it looses its buoyancy and should sink to the ground. But from the view of the submarine crew, the situation is just reversed, and the submarine should rise to the surface. With astonishment we can read in the specialist magazine Physical Review D (volume 68, article 027701): “This paradox of the SToR has now been resolved by a Brazilian researcher... When an object is moving past a stationary observer at close to the  speed  of light, it appears to get shorter to him. This so-called Lorentz contraction should therefore make a submarine, which is of the  same density as water in a system at rest and is therefore swimming at a constant altitude, sink since its density increases because of the contraction. According to the frame of reference of the submarine crew, however, the sub is stationary, and the water is rushing past. It therefore appears to be denser than the sub and as a consequence the sub should float. In his study, George Matsas of the State University of Sao Paulo in Brazil used the equations of the General Theory of Relativity in order to calculate a generalised buoyancy for objects which are moving almost at the velocity of light in a liquid. Since  the General Theory of Relativity accounts for gravitational forces, the submarine paradox could be solved in this way - the submarine sinks even from the viewpoint of the submarine crew. Reason for this is the gravitational field of the water rushing past which also reduces the buoyancy in this frame of reference. Matsas has shown in an elegant way that this contradiction dissolves when considering the energy of acceleration of the gravity field. His solutions should also be applicable to the theory of the Hawking radiation emitted by black holes which can exert a sort of “ buoyant force “ on nearby matter according to some researchers.“

    Comment: so the contradictions of the SToR can be solved by means of the GTR. Well done, really! And what does this have to do with the  SToR at all?

17 All so-called “tests of the SToR“ concern predominantly only “tests of light propagation“ and can therefore not confirm the SToR at all (because even the theory according to Lorentz would be confirmed by that). A verification of the constancy of the velocity of light cannot at the same time be a verification of the SToR for the simple reason that it is not a prediction of the theory but a basic assumption! (Vicious circle: MM experiment measures constancy of c, Einstein bases his theory on it, establishing the constancy of  c “confirms“ theory...)

18  Actually particles are not “discovered“! We should not forget that all those “particles“, mesons, kaons, muons, etc. materialise as spherical fields, spherical waves, impulse fields, etc... because of the conditions of encounter in T.A.O. and are for the most part produced in the  charged particle accelerators.

19  Georg Galeczki/Peter Marquardt: “Requiem für die Spezielle Relativität“ (= Requiem for Special Relativity), Haag + Herchen 1997.

20  The different operation of the clocks is easy to understand. One circumnavigation was flown towards the East and one towards the West. Both journeys lasted for three days. The result of the experiment: 
The clock travelling eastwards lost on average 59 nanoseconds compared to the clock in Washington whereas the clock travelling westwards gained on average 273 nanoseconds. Since one of the planes was flying with the rotation of the Earth, the other against it, and the clock in Washington was going along with the rotation of the Earth, all three clocks were moving at a different speed through the matrix of T.A.O. The clocks reacted with changes in their operation because of their inertia compared to the higher absolute system of the matrix. One difference results from the flight level of the two travelling clocks compared to the clock in Washington (faster operation) and from the retardation of running due to this motion. The fastest clock which gained the rotation of the Earth when flying eastwards therefore lost again most of the seconds gained by the flight level because of its high speed and therefore it was 59 nanoseconds slow, whereas the slower one lost little of its increase in frequency through the flight level and therefore was 273 seconds fast.
The values can only be reconciled with the predictions of the SToR and the GTR if they are relativised to an imaginary stationary clock (i.e. if they are not compared with the clock in Washington). That time itself had nothing to do with these incorrectly operating clocks is proved by the fact that the rotation of the Earth did not change during these three days and that the course of the world was not disturbed at all...

21 Aberration of the stars: since light inside a telescope needs time for traversing, it receives a diagonal path in the moving telescope behind whose elongation we falsely locate the star. The angle of aberration results simply from v/c; during one revolution of the Earth there is thus an East-West drift of the observed star of 2 v/c = 2*10-4 degrees, that’s about 41 angular seconds. The aberration, which was first determined by James Bradley, corresponds very well with this value. Since the velocity of the Earth was quite well known at this time, Bradley could measure the value of c essentially exacter because of the angles of aberration (Principle of Existence, Page 490)

22 The SToR also predicts, for instance, that with the same particle one observer will measure a mass  smaller than Planck mass, another observer, however, will measure  a mass bigger than Planck mass. This is of course nonsense.

23 Experiments in the manner of Michelson’s have been repeated many times, even in a variety of variations, with laser beams for the first time in 1964, even with different arm lengths and cooled equipment (Kennedy-Thorndike experiment), with microwaves in echo boxes, etc... Most of the time the frequencies of two laser beams directed perpendicular to each other were compared and the resulted difference between the frequencies (the beat frequency) was recorded. These cases also revealed (although not without exception) that no change in the frequency followed the turning of the experimental set-up which was always celebrated as new, modern evidence for the SToR.
Well, the absolute propagation of the light in T.A.O. also applies to many other electromagnetic processes. Since in case of the laser there is a fixed relation between the causing and the emitted light-waves, which are arranged perpendicular to each other in addition, a differential compensation has to be expected from that alone. When the causing wave is subject to shortening, the emitted one is extended. The working frequency of a laser, however, is determined also by the distance of the two mirrors at the ends of the laser. The perpendicular laser beam corresponds thus absolutely with the vertical arm of the Michelson interferometer. 
Since the distance in the perpendicular laser will be of the same length as the one of the horizontal laser for the same reasons of reflection as in the original Michelson instrument, no result is to be expected in this case, either. In the theory of this experiment, factors are also paying a role which include, among other things, the exact consideration of atomic behaviour. But we must not forget at all that eventually all matter is created of electric fields and that their absolute fixation in the T.A.O. is given, from which firstly comes the peculiar phenomenon of the inert mass and of which secondly a Lorentz contraction has to be expected

24  The Doppler effect could offer a good possibility to directly locate the time dilatation postulated by Einstein. In fact by means of the spectrums of far away milky way systems, which, as is commonly known, move away from us at very high speeds. Their light is distinctly altered in its colour by that. 
But what cannot transform is that message which is not transmitted: the absorbed light whose lines of absorption we recognise in every spectrum (Frauenhofer lines). Without thinking about it the concepts red or blue shift are usually combined with the ideas that the lines of absorption shift in the spectrum - and this assumption is wrong. These lines are in fact exactly that which does not change. What shifts is the spectrum! Therefore we can assign these lines to particular elements for certain and identify them in every spectrum (like the lines H or K of calcium) and at the same time establish the shifting of the light spectrum relative to them. 
That should make many any disciple of the Theory of Relativity suspicious, though, for the reason that if something like an expansion of time happened in one of the fast moving galaxies, these dark lines would have to shift as well - because in an altered time, calcium would on no account absorb the same wavelength as in “our“ time! 
This altered absorption would have to present itself clearly to our eyes because it doesn’t cause any signal, so to speak it is a “hole“ in the spectrum and thus it is not subject to any relativistic effects. But a shift of this kind, namely of spectrum and lines at the same time (as is to be expected to a different extent), has never been observed up to now. That means that calcium atoms behave in the same way in far away galaxies as here on our Earth. Obviously all calcium atoms remain faithful to their characteristic absorption frequency all over the universe - and that proves that they all exist in one and the same “time“. In this connection it should be noted that Einstein’s time dilatation would have to result from the relative velocity of the galaxy whereas the clock retardation which we discovered always results from the absolute motion which is of course essentially lower with the galaxies.

25  The paradox can only be solved by one concept which has actually no right to be in the Theory of Relativity: bias. Because both the travelling brother and the brother who remained at home should testify that the travelling one ages less than the one left at home. Even for the fanatic relativist this is not immediately plausible because it is exactly the impossibility to differentiate between “station“ and “train” from which one should be able to conclude that every brother would claim the same of the other. One searched for distinctive features of the systems moving away from each other in order to achieve an asymmetry in aging. One of these reasons is based on the fact that the traveller is subject to accelerations and the stationary one is not. Apart from the fact that the fields of acceleration and of gravitation are equivalent to each other (GTR), one can forget this argument right from the start: accelerations are not considered in the SToR so to speak. Those authors who want to see the GTR applied to an analysis of the twin paradox are piquantly right – because the SToR can be refuted by means of the GTR. Because, as it is, one has to acknowledge that the “stationary state” of the one at home does not apply since the spaceship which leaves its system does of course transmit an impulse to it according to the principle of action and reaction. As for the rest, this impulse is only equalised by the return of the spaceship. Both brothers are therefore subject to accelerations. It has to be noted here that the traveller is only able to achieve such accelerations which correspond to the fuel taken along - a mass that has to be taken from a stationary system. The take-off mass therefore determines both the impulse of one system and of the other system. The event is still symmetrical!
In addition, the exact calculation of the problem would have to include the field quantities (acceleration and gravitation). It is impossible to consider the event biased because due to the laws of conservation the calculation must always be symmetrical - otherwise one would have to mistrust the laws of conservation but we certainly don’t want to go that far. 
Another method argues with the Doppler effect: each of the twins has to send impulses separated by the same intervals according to his own time. Since A is moving away from B each will receive the signals of the other at a reduced frequency... But how long will this be the case? And here one senses asymmetry: namely as soon as A returns, he immediately receives signals from B at a higher frequency. For B, however, the case is completely different, one would think: the last signal which A sends out prior to returning will reach B only after a certain time. Thus B receives the signals with the low frequency from A far longer than half the total travelling time; each of the two observers, however, receives exactly as many signals as the other sent out... How should their respective measurements of the total time correspond nevertheless?
The error of this arguments arises from the fact that a symmetry is assigned to the Doppler effect of the light which it cannot have in truth. Basically two causes are possible: either the light comes towards us or we are coming closer to the light. In the first case, the impulse of the light has the velocity c relative to us; in the second case it has it relative to the source. Of course, this slightly changes the corresponding moment in which the impulse is received - as one can also notice with the sound whose Doppler effect admits a differentiability between moving and stationary source (provided the carrying medium is at rest). That this is the case with the acoustic Doppler effect will not surprise any physicist; but what may astonish many of them is the fact that the asymmetry of the Doppler effect with light was practically proved in experiments by H.E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell already in the year 1938 (J.Opt.Sci.Am., 28,215-226 ; 1938). Their measurements dealt with the light emitted to the front or to the rear (relative to the direction of motion of the source). A hydrogen discharge tube was the source of H2 and H3 ions. The emitted light quanta corresponded to the characteristic lines of the atomic hydrogen. The apparent wavelength of the Hb line was determined with greatest care, the lines shifted by the Doppler effect were measured exactly for three different voltages. In doing so it was distinctly revealed that the lines of the ions moving forward did not shift to the same extent as the lines moving backwards. This experiment has already been interpreted in a variety of manners - both by opponents and by supporters of the Theory of Relativity. The ones think it only proves the actual slower operation of moved clocks, the others saw it as a proof for time dilatation. 
But what the experiment really showed (analogous to Fizeau’s flow experiment) was nothing but the independence of the velocity of light from its source - but not from the observer. In the “stationary“ medium, even the speed of sound is independent of the source; in this case, the medium takes part in any velocities of the system, like for example the atmosphere of the Earth. On the other hand, a dragged “ether” of the light does not exist - and with that the absoluteness of the velocity of light of all systems is proved so to speak, it is thus independent either from the observer or from the source conditional on the situation of movement. Only a system in which the light propagates really to all sides at the same speed is absolutely at rest!
For that reason, there is no twin paradox because the symmetry of the event is not violated by the Doppler effect. It is always ignored with the often quoted examples that the traveller is unable to return immediately but has to come to a standstill first in any case before he returns! With that the familiar claim, B would receive the low frequency far longer than A, is of no importance because A will receive the higher frequency longer during his return.

26  H. W. Thim, “Absence of the transverse Doppler shift at microwave frequencies”, Digest of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference 2002, pp. 1345-1348,  ISBN 0-7803-7218-2, ISN 1091-5281, IEEE Number 00CH 37276.

27  For Poincare, Es = mSc2 was nothing mysterious. Other scientists as well, like Joseph Larmor, Joseph John Thomson, Oliver Heaviside, and Friedrich Hasenöhrl were familiar with this relation. E=4mc2/3 had already occurred to Hasenöhrl (1874 - 1915) in 1904. But the roots of E = mc2 go back even farther. Peter and Neal Graneau write in Newton versus Einstein, How Matter Interacts with Matter, 1993, p. 122:  "Writers of electromagnetics have been poor historians. They usually give Maxwell the credit for having discovered the velocity of light in electromagnetic theory. This honor belongs to Weber. Weber deserves credit for another theoretical discovery which is normally attributed to Einstein. This concerns the increase of mass with velocity and E = mc2. Many textbook writers consider this to be one of the most important revelations of the special theory of relativity. Weber had stumbled on this fact 50 years before Einstein discussed it in detail.“   Already in 1846, Wilhelm Eduard Weber calculated the potential voltage bound  in 1 mm3 water according to the formula E = mc2. The first indication of the formula goes even back to Lagrange. Einstein’s main credit was only that this relation later became a  worldwide sensation because of clever publicity.









German Version